The Wolf Of Wallstreet (Dir: Scorcese)

[ric]

Thought this was an absolutely ridiculous movie that managed to have no likeable characters. No character arcs, just debauchery from start to finish.

6.5 outta 10

heard after the fact that people are giving it modern 'goodfellas' type status. totally disagree with that. that kind of shit just goes to show that people dont really know whats up and that really most peoples movie recommendations are not worth listening to

[ardamus]

Thought this was an absolutely ridiculous movie that managed to have no likeable characters. No character arcs, just debauchery from start to finish.

The editing was really bad, there were horrible continuity problems all over the place. The classic person still talking during the over the shoulders when there's silence, and a phantom cardboard box that comes out of nowhere in the scene were Leo finally decides to go rat come to mind, but there were plenty of others. Also, this should have been about an hour shorter.

Jonah Hill was really good in this despite all the "bros", DiCaprio really did a great job portraying the lead character, but again, he just plays the same guy throughout the story without any character arc at all. I thought the country club scene - while hilarious - was almost a short film within the greater film. Movie needed more McConaughey.

How about showing some more of the police officer's back story, and show some of the people that these guys duped to drive home the reality of what they were doing? Instead, the audience is sort of encouraged to cheer for these douche bags because we don't really see the other side of it. This is sure to be the new favorite frat guy film. This is a very middling Scorsese flick.

6.5 outta 10

Dude, why show more of the police back story when the fundamental story of the movie is about the stock industry. That would've made it boring. And beisdes, the over the top shit within the company and how these people acted is probably true. And of course, no one was likeable. They were greedy fucks. Even the police dude was sneaky dude trying to entrap Jordan. Anyways, I say all this to say I don't agree with this 6.5 rating. I give it about an 8.5 out of 10.

[jamrage]

Thought this was an absolutely ridiculous movie that managed to have no likeable characters. No character arcs, just debauchery from start to finish.

The editing was really bad, there were horrible continuity problems all over the place. The classic person still talking during the over the shoulders when there's silence, and a phantom cardboard box that comes out of nowhere in the scene were Leo finally decides to go rat come to mind, but there were plenty of others. Also, this should have been about an hour shorter.

Jonah Hill was really good in this despite all the "bros", DiCaprio really did a great job portraying the lead character, but again, he just plays the same guy throughout the story without any character arc at all. I thought the country club scene - while hilarious - was almost a short film within the greater film. Movie needed more McConaughey.

How about showing some more of the police officer's back story, and show some of the people that these guys duped to drive home the reality of what they were doing? Instead, the audience is sort of encouraged to cheer for these douche bags because we don't really see the other side of it. This is sure to be the new favorite frat guy film. This is a very middling Scorsese flick.

6.5 outta 10

Dude, why show more of the police back story when the fundamental story of the movie is about the stock industry. That would've made it boring. And beisdes, the over the top shit within the company and how these people acted is probably true. And of course, no one was likeable. They were greedy fucks. Even the police dude was sneaky dude trying to entrap Jordan. Anyways, I say all this to say I don't agree with this 6.5 rating. I give it about an 8.5 out of 10.

I just like movies that have arcs, and show both sides of the story i guess. Call me old fashioned. I think that should be particularly important if you're attempting to tell a true story. This film is easily 50% about them getting fucked up and 50% of them "working", it's not exactly the new "Wall Street".

Of course the cop was sneaky, he's trying to make Bellfort do something stupid so he can arrest him. The truth is that a lot of shitheads (not saying everyone who likes the movie is a shithead) are going to love this movie because it allows you revel and root for a huge douchebag that never really had pay for his crimes. Showing the people that had to suffer because of these assholes would change the tone of the movie, and cause people to question their feelings about Bellfort. You could still have a debaucherous movie, but I think that would made the movie better if they'd addressed that at the end. Just my opinion of course.

Would "The Wire" have been better if they'd just focused on the drug dealers and ignored the cops? Of course not.

[wizeguy]

Thought this was an absolutely ridiculous movie that managed to have no likeable characters. No character arcs, just debauchery from start to finish.

The editing was really bad, there were horrible continuity problems all over the place. The classic person still talking during the over the shoulders when there's silence, and a phantom cardboard box that comes out of nowhere in the scene were Leo finally decides to go rat come to mind, but there were plenty of others. Also, this should have been about an hour shorter.

Jonah Hill was really good in this despite all the "bros", DiCaprio really did a great job portraying the lead character, but again, he just plays the same guy throughout the story without any character arc at all. I thought the country club scene - while hilarious - was almost a short film within the greater film. Movie needed more McConaughey.

How about showing some more of the police officer's back story, and show some of the people that these guys duped to drive home the reality of what they were doing? Instead, the audience is sort of encouraged to cheer for these douche bags because we don't really see the other side of it. This is sure to be the new favorite frat guy film. This is a very middling Scorsese flick.

6.5 outta 10

Dude, why show more of the police back story when the fundamental story of the movie is about the stock industry. That would've made it boring. And beisdes, the over the top shit within the company and how these people acted is probably true. And of course, no one was likeable. They were greedy fucks. Even the police dude was sneaky dude trying to entrap Jordan. Anyways, I say all this to say I don't agree with this 6.5 rating. I give it about an 8.5 out of 10.

I just like movies that have arcs, and show both sides of the story i guess. Call me old fashioned. I think that should be particularly important if you're attempting to tell a true story. This film is easily 50% about them getting fucked up and 50% of them "working", it's not exactly the new "Wall Street".

Of course the cop was sneaky, he's trying to make Bellfort do something stupid so he can arrest him. The truth is that a lot of shitheads (not saying everyone who likes the movie is a shithead) are going to love this movie because it allows you revel and root for a huge douchebag that never really had pay for his crimes. Showing the people that had to suffer because of these assholes would change the tone of the movie, and cause people to question their feelings about Bellfort. You could still have a debaucherous movie, but I think that would made the movie better if they'd addressed that at the end. Just my opinion of course.

Would "The Wire" have been better if they'd just focused on the drug dealers and ignored the cops? Of course not.

This isn't a movie about cops and robbers, only robbers and from their point of view (like Casino and Goodfellas for that matter). There's nothing different about this one than many other gangster movies and I don't hear people expecting them to show the pain of victims' families and what not (at least not in the last couple of decades). And the victims in those movies are sometimes innocent people who didn't have a choice, unlike in this one. I don't dispute that the Belfort and his company are swindlers like most people who organize ponzi schemes and fraud, but most of his 'victims' were willing participants just as greedy as him who wanted to get rich quick. Basically gamblers.

[Req]

Lots of Scorsese movies tend not to have deep arcs though. They're open narratives of troubled people and zeitgeists of a particular time. Probably due to the fact that he uses a certain type of source material as opposed to original screenplays and closed fiction.

Henry Hill and Ace Rothstein didn't 'learn' anything from their experiences. They were still degenerates when the credits rolled. There's no true arc there. Same goes for The Departed and Gangs of New York. No distinguished hero's journey to speak of unless you're talking a basic rise and fall, which this film has.

btw, i fully disagree with people who think this movie glamorizes Belfort. He was portrayed as a maniac on enough drugs to drop a horse who didn't give a fuck about the class of people he came from and felt no ways about putting his own family in danger just to make money. Scumbag supreme. The only people who sympathize with characters like that are people who would have no problems doing the same.

[Spartan]

But in the end, Hill did learn that egg noodles with ketchup was not exactly spaghetti with marinara sauce.

[Philaflava]

Hill's character leaves in my area, a nice area, not exactly where I live, and sells medical equip. Well owns a company that does. Both he and his wife drive Bentleys to work and he was able to keep a lot of that $.

[jamrage]

Thought this was an absolutely ridiculous movie that managed to have no likeable characters. No character arcs, just debauchery from start to finish.

The editing was really bad, there were horrible continuity problems all over the place. The classic person still talking during the over the shoulders when there's silence, and a phantom cardboard box that comes out of nowhere in the scene were Leo finally decides to go rat come to mind, but there were plenty of others. Also, this should have been about an hour shorter.

Jonah Hill was really good in this despite all the "bros", DiCaprio really did a great job portraying the lead character, but again, he just plays the same guy throughout the story without any character arc at all. I thought the country club scene - while hilarious - was almost a short film within the greater film. Movie needed more McConaughey.

How about showing some more of the police officer's back story, and show some of the people that these guys duped to drive home the reality of what they were doing? Instead, the audience is sort of encouraged to cheer for these douche bags because we don't really see the other side of it. This is sure to be the new favorite frat guy film. This is a very middling Scorsese flick.

6.5 outta 10

Dude, why show more of the police back story when the fundamental story of the movie is about the stock industry. That would've made it boring. And beisdes, the over the top shit within the company and how these people acted is probably true. And of course, no one was likeable. They were greedy fucks. Even the police dude was sneaky dude trying to entrap Jordan. Anyways, I say all this to say I don't agree with this 6.5 rating. I give it about an 8.5 out of 10.

I just like movies that have arcs, and show both sides of the story i guess. Call me old fashioned. I think that should be particularly important if you're attempting to tell a true story. This film is easily 50% about them getting fucked up and 50% of them "working", it's not exactly the new "Wall Street".

Of course the cop was sneaky, he's trying to make Bellfort do something stupid so he can arrest him. The truth is that a lot of shitheads (not saying everyone who likes the movie is a shithead) are going to love this movie because it allows you revel and root for a huge douchebag that never really had pay for his crimes. Showing the people that had to suffer because of these assholes would change the tone of the movie, and cause people to question their feelings about Bellfort. You could still have a debaucherous movie, but I think that would made the movie better if they'd addressed that at the end. Just my opinion of course.

Would "The Wire" have been better if they'd just focused on the drug dealers and ignored the cops? Of course not.

This isn't a movie about cops and robbers, only robbers and from their point of view (like Casino and Goodfellas for that matter). There's nothing different about this one than many other gangster movies and I don't hear people expecting them to show the pain of victims' families and what not (at least not in the last couple of decades). And the victims in those movies are sometimes innocent people who didn't have a choice, unlike in this one. I don't dispute that the Belfort and his company are swindlers like most people who organize ponzi schemes and fraud, but most of his 'victims' were willing participants just as greedy as him who wanted to get rich quick. Basically gamblers.

I would argue that in Goodfellas particularly we saw consequences for their actions. People were killed, they were arrested, they did time. These were clearly bad people. Henry Hill definitely had differing views on things as the movie progressed, particularly when everyone started dying. I mean, that's why he ratted people out, he was scared for his life. I'd say that his character did arc, he ended up doing something at the end of the film that he never would have considered at the beginning.

In Wolf we don't really see any consequence for Bellfort's actions at all. He could have just taken the deal he got from the SEC and been fine. And yes, the people they scammed were victims. They were sold a shitty bill of goods in bad faith that had almost zero chance of making them money. You're not gambling if the game is rigged, you're just losing. The people that got swindled were often people that could least afford to lose the money, but wanted a better shot at life. I feel badly for them.

Of course it glamorizes Bellfort. Ask yourself if you were pulling for him to continue his success when you were watching the film? I felt it.

Because we never saw the victims of these crimes, the film does a poor job of telling the whole story. Scorsese could have made a much more compelling three hour long film if he'd cut out some of the debauchery and actually shown the results of Bellfort's actions. I think it would make people ask many more questions about Bellfort and themselves.

[Blockhead]

Perhaps Bellfort coming out clean in the end is kinda the point? The shot of him playing tennis in jail pretty much hammers that home.
I don't think the movie was made to hate or loath him as much as just to tell a story of what happened and how corrupt everything is, that a man like him could come out of something like this basically unscathed. Showing the victims wouldn't have really added anything to the movie for me cause it wasn't about victims. It was about the criminals. Showing only what they saw makes sense with the entire theme of the movie. I'm glad they kept that other shit out of it cause, in reality, this movie was really a comedy/drama. Adding some pull your heart strings shit like seeing in depth coverage of the victims of the crimes wouldn't have fit, imo.
And the idea of digging more into the cops side of things doesn't really make sense. The movies was long enough. It didn't need an entire sub-plot about the cops life. Seeing him eat shit while riding the train was enough to tell the story.

[blastmaster]

There is a second book that details the law enforcement side of things. Read it.

[jamrage]

Perhaps Bellfort coming out clean in the end is kinda the point? The shot of him playing tennis in jail pretty much hammers that home.
I don't think the movie was made to hate or loath him as much as just to tell a story of what happened and how corrupt everything is, that a man like him could come out of something like this basically unscathed. Showing the victims wouldn't have really added anything to the movie for me cause it wasn't about victims. It was about the criminals. Showing only what they saw makes sense with the entire theme of the movie. I'm glad they kept that other shit out of it cause, in reality, this movie was really a comedy/drama. Adding some pull your heart strings shit like seeing in depth coverage of the victims of the crimes wouldn't have fit, imo.
And the idea of digging more into the cops side of things doesn't really make sense. The movies was long enough. It didn't need an entire sub-plot about the cops life. Seeing him eat shit while riding the train was enough to tell the story.

We'll just disagree I guess.

I just think that if you're going to tell a true story you should focus on the whole story as much as possible. I'm not even asking for in depth coverage, but could you have spent five minutes on it at the end? This movie was way too long and redundant anyway, they could have easily cut it. Personally, I think it would have been much more interesting.

Fucking Wall Street guys love this movie, and that's kind of scary.

[wizeguy]

Thought this was an absolutely ridiculous movie that managed to have no likeable characters. No character arcs, just debauchery from start to finish.

The editing was really bad, there were horrible continuity problems all over the place. The classic person still talking during the over the shoulders when there's silence, and a phantom cardboard box that comes out of nowhere in the scene were Leo finally decides to go rat come to mind, but there were plenty of others. Also, this should have been about an hour shorter.

Jonah Hill was really good in this despite all the "bros", DiCaprio really did a great job portraying the lead character, but again, he just plays the same guy throughout the story without any character arc at all. I thought the country club scene - while hilarious - was almost a short film within the greater film. Movie needed more McConaughey.

How about showing some more of the police officer's back story, and show some of the people that these guys duped to drive home the reality of what they were doing? Instead, the audience is sort of encouraged to cheer for these douche bags because we don't really see the other side of it. This is sure to be the new favorite frat guy film. This is a very middling Scorsese flick.

6.5 outta 10

Dude, why show more of the police back story when the fundamental story of the movie is about the stock industry. That would've made it boring. And beisdes, the over the top shit within the company and how these people acted is probably true. And of course, no one was likeable. They were greedy fucks. Even the police dude was sneaky dude trying to entrap Jordan. Anyways, I say all this to say I don't agree with this 6.5 rating. I give it about an 8.5 out of 10.

I just like movies that have arcs, and show both sides of the story i guess. Call me old fashioned. I think that should be particularly important if you're attempting to tell a true story. This film is easily 50% about them getting fucked up and 50% of them "working", it's not exactly the new "Wall Street".

Of course the cop was sneaky, he's trying to make Bellfort do something stupid so he can arrest him. The truth is that a lot of shitheads (not saying everyone who likes the movie is a shithead) are going to love this movie because it allows you revel and root for a huge douchebag that never really had pay for his crimes. Showing the people that had to suffer because of these assholes would change the tone of the movie, and cause people to question their feelings about Bellfort. You could still have a debaucherous movie, but I think that would made the movie better if they'd addressed that at the end. Just my opinion of course.

Would "The Wire" have been better if they'd just focused on the drug dealers and ignored the cops? Of course not.

This isn't a movie about cops and robbers, only robbers and from their point of view (like Casino and Goodfellas for that matter). There's nothing different about this one than many other gangster movies and I don't hear people expecting them to show the pain of victims' families and what not (at least not in the last couple of decades). And the victims in those movies are sometimes innocent people who didn't have a choice, unlike in this one. I don't dispute that the Belfort and his company are swindlers like most people who organize ponzi schemes and fraud, but most of his 'victims' were willing participants just as greedy as him who wanted to get rich quick. Basically gamblers.

I would argue that in Goodfellas particularly we saw consequences for their actions. People were killed, they were arrested, they did time. These were clearly bad people. Henry Hill definitely had differing views on things as the movie progressed, particularly when everyone started dying. I mean, that's why he ratted people out, he was scared for his life. I'd say that his character did arc, he ended up doing something at the end of the film that he never would have considered at the beginning.

In Wolf we don't really see any consequence for Bellfort's actions at all. He could have just taken the deal he got from the SEC and been fine. And yes, the people they scammed were victims. They were sold a shitty bill of goods in bad faith that had almost zero chance of making them money. You're not gambling if the game is rigged, you're just losing. The people that got swindled were often people that could least afford to lose the money, but wanted a better shot at life. I feel badly for them.

Of course it glamorizes Bellfort. Ask yourself if you were pulling for him to continue his success when you were watching the film? I felt it.

Because we never saw the victims of these crimes, the film does a poor job of telling the whole story. Scorsese could have made a much more compelling three hour long film if he'd cut out some of the debauchery and actually shown the results of Bellfort's actions. I think it would make people ask many more questions about Belfort and themselves.

They got arrested here too. Henry Hill and Jordan Belfort are basically the same character. What's Henry Hill's arc? I always wanted to be a gangster. Oh cool, now I'm a gangster doing drugs, fucking hookers, having a mistress and stealing money. Oh shit I'm gonna get killed, I better rat everybody out. Fuck, I'm no longer a gangster and it's so boring. Jordan Belfort's arc: I always wanted to be rich no matter what; Oh cool, now I'm rich doing drugs, fucking hookers, having a mistress and stealing money; Oh shit I'm gonna get arrested, I better rat everybody out; Fuck I'm no longer rich and it's so boring.

Now if you or the critics who don't like it said that there shouldn't be movies about these type of douchebags that would be ok, but liking one and criticising the other for the same thing doesn't make sense. I'm guessing it's because most of the critics are leftwing. They expected some grand explicit commentary on America and capitalism which is everything they think is wrong with the world today. Even if Scorsese and Leo agree with them, they were smart enough to stick to the real story for the most part (that Mark Hannah 'we don't create shit' speech is made up, and I find it hard to believe Belfort was talking about CDOs and Merryll Lynch to that FBI agent).

Well if you're gambling you're bound to be a loser. And I don't know where this idea that investment is not risky came from. There are some people who don't know better, and I feel for them, but they too made a willing decision to give money to some asshole they don't know over the phone. It is fraud, but it's different than someone threatening you for protection money which is what gangsters in Goodfellas do for a living. These people had a CHOICE. Yes some are too stupid to make an informed decision, but not everyone. I know some people who gamble and I wouldn't call any of them dumb or uninformed. My cousin who is a doctor gave money to a ponzi scheme bank back in the day with insane interest. He was even boastful about it, even though the whole family told him he's gonna wind up broke which of course happened. That's greed for you. Just yesterday some asshole in my country did the same thing. Guy had a supposedly legit business called Elite International, but promised his clients 3 percent monthly interest (which is what you get at legitimate banks annually, and even that money is not 100% safe). Well if you believe that shit and you're not retarded, you are greedy and you'll have to learn the hard way.

I certainly wasn't pulling for him to continue his success. You're not supposed to root for these characters. Scorsese's point is to show their mentality and the world they live in as honestly as possible. And in their world they don't give a fuck about anybody except themselves. It's in a way a conscious provocation to the audience. Scorsese even admitted that at the end of Goodfellas you're supposed to get angry at Henry, and it's no different in this movie. Think of the scene with the dead guy in a tub. It's like 'later he commited suicide, but anyway let's go back to talking about pussy'. You might find that objectionable, but that is the reality those people we're living in.

[Blockhead]

Fucking Wall Street guys love this movie, and that's kind of scary.

This I agree with. Anytime Gucci Condoms supports a movement, you gotta question it.
Still, I really enjoyed this movie.

[wizeguy]

The first thing I heard while exiting the cinema were two dudebros having this conversation: 'Damn that guy was crazy!', 'Who cares he lived like a king for six years dude!' :)

[Versive]

Thought this was an absolutely ridiculous movie that managed to have no likeable characters. No character arcs, just debauchery from start to finish.

The editing was really bad, there were horrible continuity problems all over the place. The classic person still talking during the over the shoulders when there's silence, and a phantom cardboard box that comes out of nowhere in the scene were Leo finally decides to go rat come to mind, but there were plenty of others. Also, this should have been about an hour shorter.

Jonah Hill was really good in this despite all the "bros", DiCaprio really did a great job portraying the lead character, but again, he just plays the same guy throughout the story without any character arc at all. I thought the country club scene - while hilarious - was almost a short film within the greater film. Movie needed more McConaughey.

How about showing some more of the police officer's back story, and show some of the people that these guys duped to drive home the reality of what they were doing? Instead, the audience is sort of encouraged to cheer for these douche bags because we don't really see the other side of it. This is sure to be the new favorite frat guy film. This is a very middling Scorsese flick.

6.5 outta 10

Dude, why show more of the police back story when the fundamental story of the movie is about the stock industry. That would've made it boring. And beisdes, the over the top shit within the company and how these people acted is probably true. And of course, no one was likeable. They were greedy fucks. Even the police dude was sneaky dude trying to entrap Jordan. Anyways, I say all this to say I don't agree with this 6.5 rating. I give it about an 8.5 out of 10.

I just like movies that have arcs, and show both sides of the story i guess. Call me old fashioned. I think that should be particularly important if you're attempting to tell a true story. This film is easily 50% about them getting fucked up and 50% of them "working", it's not exactly the new "Wall Street".

Of course the cop was sneaky, he's trying to make Bellfort do something stupid so he can arrest him. The truth is that a lot of shitheads (not saying everyone who likes the movie is a shithead) are going to love this movie because it allows you revel and root for a huge douchebag that never really had pay for his crimes. Showing the people that had to suffer because of these assholes would change the tone of the movie, and cause people to question their feelings about Bellfort. You could still have a debaucherous movie, but I think that would made the movie better if they'd addressed that at the end. Just my opinion of course.

Would "The Wire" have been better if they'd just focused on the drug dealers and ignored the cops? Of course not.

Most Scorsese movies lack a traditional plot structure. Didn't he say himself that The Departed was the first of his movies to have an actual plot?

[GUCCI CONDOMS]

Fucking Wall Street guys love this movie, and that's kind of scary.

This I agree with. Anytime Gucci Condoms supports a movement, you gotta question it.
Still, I really enjoyed this movie.

What Jordan Belfort accomplished is def something to aspire to.

Thank you Martin Scorsese for the inspiration.

[alpha]

Yeah we should all strive towards committing felonies, financial crimes and defrauding everyday people.

[GUCCI CONDOMS]

Yeah we should all strive towards committing felonies, financial crimes and defrauding everyday people.

he made mad money tho bro...the ends justify the means

[alpha]

Not if you end broke and owning $100 mill in restitution.


Anyway, didn't think the country club scene was as crazy as you guys made
It seem. Loved the movie but it was too long.

[Req]

In Wolf we don't really see any consequence for Bellfort's actions at all.

Yeah, i mean aside from him becoming a drug addled freak show, his wife leaving him and taking their child, him having to rat out all his friends and all the people that depended on him, almost getting he and his wife killed, being imprisoned, not being able to make another move for the rest of his life without the FBI garnishing.... aside from all that, yes, there were no consequences.

I honestly think you're confusing "I don't like what this film is saying" with "this film is not good." This film shows that people do dickhead things for money. This film shows that you can defraud people and get away with it. This film shows that there is a different rule for the rich. I understand why you don't like it, but it's not like any lies are being told here.

Of course Wall Street dudes and idiots love the film, because they'd give their right testicle to be Belfort. They live in a world where excess and greed is the number one goal, a core theme running through the movie. That's why they're fucking scumbags, like Belfort. Anyone who finished watching this film and wanted to be Belfort has some serious issues. I thought it did an exemplary job of showing him for exactly what he is.

[jamrage]

You guys are all making good points here even though I don't agree with them. I'll just come up with a general response instead of addressing you individually.

For me the big difference between Goodfellas and Wolf is that you are seeing people killed, beat up, abused in Goodfellas. There's clearly victims everywhere, and there's always this threat from police. They go to jail in the middle of the movie. In Wolf you don't see any of this addressed until at least halfway through the film, and even then it's a mostly half-hearted attempt. We never see anyone have their house foreclosed on or have to take on another job because of the money they lost, they're just morons on the end of the phone. Jail doesn't show up until the very end of Wolf, and even then Bellfort is playing tennis in it. This despite the fact that while Hill was a foot soldier Bellfort was the kingpin. I just think it would have been better if we'd seen the other side of things too.

As far as consequences, Bellfort loved being a drug addled freak show. You never felt that he REALLY cared about his wife other than that she was a hot piece of ass that he liked to fuck. Him having to pay back $100 million was a consequence, but again he was out of jail quickly and was able to write a book that was then turned into a movie. Given everything that he did, it's difficult to think that he really has it badly when he should have had a 30+year prison sentence and a fine twice the one he was assessed. By the end of the movie he's speaking to a group of people clearly having success as a motivational speaker. You don't feel that bad for him.

Of course investing is a gamble, but its one that people actually succeed in. I know a lot of people that have made money of the market. With Bellfort, there was never any chance for them to get their money back. They might as well of burnt the money themselves because at least they'd get the warmth. If you don't feel sorry for the people that got duped then you're kind of a cold person.

People keep saying that you aren't supposed to root for Bellfort, but watching the film it's clear that's what you're supposed to do. Again, I felt it while watching the thing and tons of other people have as well. That happens because you aren't showing the other side of things. I just think it would have given the film some perspective and caused people to question the reaction they were having.

I both don't like what this film is saying and don't think it's a very good film. This is coming from someone that loves Goodfellas, btw. It does show you how fucked up Wall Street and the justice system can be, but in the end this film kind of leaves you feeling like that's okay. This is evidenced by the dudebros that wizeguy heard: "'Damn that guy was crazy!', 'Who cares he lived like a king for six years dude!"

[sleazy_j]

http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/09 ... de-scenes/

i didn't realize that broad was only 23.
somewhat hypocritical or maybe cowardice in saying "yeah, the nudity was warranted" to herself then actually lying about her scenes having any nudity to her fam, but hey
she's making the big bucks now so what do i know...

and, oh yeah, that cam was edited of scenes with excessive nudity (not sure why considering the rest of the film) and the helicopter scene at the beginning (not sure why), so it cut out about 5 minutes of footage. anyhow, there's a dvd screener out now so that's all overwith.

[intuition]

the main difference between WoWS and GF, for me, is: one seemed to get redundant half way through, the other i've watched upwards of 30 times and never been bored.

that being said, i will watch wolf again and see if it grows on me.

[ric]

The truth is that a lot of shitheads (not saying everyone who likes the movie is a shithead) are going to love this movie because it allows you revel and root for a huge douchebag that never really had pay for his crimes. Showing the people that had to suffer because of these assholes would change the tone of the movie, and cause people to question their feelings about Bellfort. You could still have a debaucherous movie, but I think that would made the movie better if they'd addressed that at the end. Just my opinion of course.

this is exactly what i was talking about that they didnt do very well.
the thing is with the very very very very end of the movie that scorcese just botches up to me was that he doesnt do it very well when....

he pans the camera up showing all the adoring faces despite all the fucking garbage that hes done and basically thievery that hes committed etc etc.

the thing is is they all fucking worship him even though they really dont know shit about him and despite what hes done (and maybe in spite of how what hes done had been portrayed)

and scorcese is trying to show that and the movie has a bit to do with commenting on that. because thats one of the wierd things about the time period were living in right now. these guys are hailed as gods because they convince people to buy shit and the prestige of wall street etc etc

[chapter thrive]

i feel the message of the movie was really well wrapped up in a few of the lines, and i think there is the punchline that the movie is. jamrage you get it, and you're outraged by it - that was the intended response. leo delivers a line about how they make their money about churning words and turn a bunch of bullshit into money from the client and here's where even a year after the occupy wallstreet movement and all the anger and shouting at the big wigs, everybody forgot why they were in that mood for the fiftieth time. they repeatedly call stratton oakmont, and by extension, the movie "America" where they trick the client into believing they too can get rich.

(by no means is this some kind of rant on "1%", just an observation)

[Blockhead]

the main difference between WoWS and GF, for me, is: one seemed to get redundant half way through, the other i've watched upwards of 30 times and never been bored.

that being said, i will watch wolf again and see if it grows on me.

I feel like , as many flaws as it may have, it will be a highly rewatchable movie. The performances alone warrant multiple viewings.
Maybe not Goodfellas rewatchable (That's tough to achieve) but at least "Departed" levels.

[alpha]

I feel like , as many flaws as it may have, it will be a highly rewatchable movie. The performances alone warrant multiple viewings.
Maybe not Goodfellas rewatchable (That's tough to achieve) but at least "Departed" levels.

this I'm with after first viewing. my main problem is that it's too long(nh).

did anyone who's in sales(or not) enjoy that scene where he starts asking the first row to sell him a pen? Pretyy good stuff imo.

[Blockhead]

I feel like , as many flaws as it may have, it will be a highly rewatchable movie. The performances alone warrant multiple viewings.
Maybe not Goodfellas rewatchable (That's tough to achieve) but at least "Departed" levels.

this I'm with after first viewing. my main problem is that it's too long(nh).

I'm kinda thinking it's gonna be one of those "When it's on cable , I can pick it up anywhere in the movie and watch the bulk of it".
When i saw "The Departed" in the theater, I thought it was just okay but once it got on cable I found myself watching it over and over again. I guess that means I like it. I think this will be like that.

[sleazy_j]

crazy.

[seagrams hotsauce]

lol@1:10 in that video^

Liked the flick. A lot of dumb fun. I can see why people accuse it of glorifying excess and greed, but no more than society glorifies those things to begin with. Belforts switch from doe eyed rookie to cutthroat stock ace was pretty sudden, and I didn't really understand the motivation there. McConaughey tells him that taking money is good, and he's just like "oh okay" and all of a sudden money is his sole motivation to live. Not that unbelievable, and as a result of his greed he loses his family, but he doesn't really give a shit. He's way more anguished about the 20 mil he stood to lose when the aunt died than the prospect of not seeing his daughter for the rest of his life. It's not that he doesn't suffer consequences, he just doesn't seem particularly affected by them.

The movie seemed much less concerned with exploring the effects of greed and materialism on Belforts relationships than it did with showing off the flash that accompanies those things. It starts and ends with examples of why being a greedy, immoral asshole presents you with exceptional options in life. That's probably the point, as from what I've read of the book the actual Belfort seems even more blithe and twee about the bullshit he pulled than the film implies.