granted maybe if i had a college-age kid maybe i'd be all upset that martin went and made my son another shameful dorm poster
― da croupier, Thursday, 2 January 2014 02:14 (twelve years ago)
hey did anyone watch cosmopolis hahahaha
― flopson, Thursday, 2 January 2014 02:16 (twelve years ago)
i tried
― lag∞n, Thursday, 2 January 2014 02:18 (twelve years ago)
same, couldnt deal. one of my best friends rides for it, he's pretty weird though
― flopson, Thursday, 2 January 2014 02:24 (twelve years ago)
his other favourite movie is syriana
― flopson, Thursday, 2 January 2014 02:25 (twelve years ago)
Crapshitopiss
― Hungry4Ass, Thursday, 2 January 2014 02:25 (twelve years ago)
watching cosmopolis is very close to the experience of redaing cosmopolis, which means it Sucks
I thought the disturbing message from this film, or at least one of them, is that money sort of *is* everything. It even invokes the "I've been rich and I've been poor and rich is better" mantra. It's the fullest, grossest, most OTT corruption of the American dream yet: you, too, can become rich, and fuck everyone else if that's what it takes. If there's anything too subtle about this, it's the film's relationship with the current financial state of affairs, the true Masters of the Universe on Wall Street who still rape and pillage at an almost unheard of scale. The movie is similarly subtle about emphasizing that for all his largesse, Jordan was not a major player. He was a street hustler who got in through the back door. The real power players are born into it, and get away with more (and probably worse).
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 2 January 2014 02:25 (twelve years ago)
so awesome that martin can still scare fuddies with excessive dark humor only now the fuddies are twenty plus years younger than him
― da croupier, Thursday, 2 January 2014 02:41 (twelve years ago)
"grandpa how could you imply that excessive drug use and greed can be enjoyable, let alone entertaining to watch?! my son is watching!"
― da croupier, Thursday, 2 January 2014 02:43 (twelve years ago)
basics fretting abt glamorizing zzzzz
― lag∞n, Thursday, 2 January 2014 02:52 (twelve years ago)
i mean its a movie its glamour that why its cool
preach
― flopson, Thursday, 2 January 2014 02:53 (twelve years ago)
art man, art
― lag∞n, Thursday, 2 January 2014 02:54 (twelve years ago)
also like, that shit was glamorous irl, too
― flopson, Thursday, 2 January 2014 02:54 (twelve years ago)
yeah being successful and powerful and rich is glamorous
― lag∞n, Thursday, 2 January 2014 02:55 (twelve years ago)
damn, croup, thought your ass would get numb watching it too
― the objections to Drake from non-REAL HIPHOP people (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 January 2014 02:55 (twelve years ago)
i mean they couldve been even more glamorous if they werent such tools but you know
― lag∞n, Thursday, 2 January 2014 02:56 (twelve years ago)
glamorous tools
― the objections to Drake from non-REAL HIPHOP people (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 January 2014 02:57 (twelve years ago)
numb butts
― flopson, Thursday, 2 January 2014 02:57 (twelve years ago)
Meryl Streep as glamorous tool.
― 龜, Thursday, 2 January 2014 02:57 (twelve years ago)
it was long, yeah, come trophy-time i'll probably root for llewyn over it (and in part for sentimental "it's about something bigger" reasons!) but there were a ton of amazing performances, set pieces, etc and it wasn't so long that i forgot it's a comedy and started fantasizing that scorsese doesn't realize how cynical he's being. there's more to this world than Strangelove-type movies suggest but that doesn't mean i'll stop laughing and cry out for Fail-Safe instead.
― da croupier, Thursday, 2 January 2014 03:01 (twelve years ago)
That's my trouble. Apart from being happy to see Scrunchy Face realize he's a good physical actor and hasn't been one since 2002 the rest were pretty much what you'd expect if Kyle Chandler, Jonah Hill, and McConoughheyhey were cast in a movie about glamorous tools.
― the objections to Drake from non-REAL HIPHOP people (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 January 2014 03:03 (twelve years ago)
hill was the best part imho
― lag∞n, Thursday, 2 January 2014 03:03 (twelve years ago)
he's made lovey-dovey eyes at his leading men before cept now he's doing it with his teeth
― the objections to Drake from non-REAL HIPHOP people (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 January 2014 03:05 (twelve years ago)
hill was great (shit, everyone was - margot robbie esp) though i wonder if he'll ever outgrow the gay-baiting improv
― da croupier, Thursday, 2 January 2014 03:07 (twelve years ago)
Robbie's tease bit was the only thing I remembered she did, but then I like blonde men.
― the objections to Drake from non-REAL HIPHOP people (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 January 2014 03:08 (twelve years ago)
funny that edelstein brings up martin sheen but forgets to mention rob reiner's father figure entirely. reiner calls out how obscene it is, advises his son to be smart, but doesn't pull some pious "i made my money the honest capitalist way" shit - he knows how money works.
― da croupier, Thursday, 2 January 2014 03:12 (twelve years ago)
martin sheen in wall street, to be clear.
― da croupier, Thursday, 2 January 2014 03:13 (twelve years ago)
the father in this movie was great
― flopson, Thursday, 2 January 2014 03:13 (twelve years ago)
when leo's telling him about the whores
Reiner swearing and shouting was at J-Law levels of unbelievability. Another run at his bit in Bullets Over Broadway.
― the objections to Drake from non-REAL HIPHOP people (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 January 2014 03:14 (twelve years ago)
rare is the ilxor that should be calling a huffy pretentious equalizer fan absurd
― da croupier, Thursday, 2 January 2014 03:15 (twelve years ago)
I hated it because its dark humour scared me?
― clemenza, Thursday, 2 January 2014 03:17 (twelve years ago)
def scared edelstein and zacharek - don't think i scrolled up to whatever your issue was so don't take it personal
― da croupier, Thursday, 2 January 2014 03:18 (twelve years ago)
da croup, my man.
― christmas candy bar (al leong), Thursday, 2 January 2014 03:22 (twelve years ago)
I think its fine to disagree with Edelstein, but he praises Taxi Driver and Goodfellas, and says the worst parts of Wall Street come from Martin Sheen. "Thumpingly insipid" doesn't really translate as cowering from the film's hard truths.
― clemenza, Thursday, 2 January 2014 03:24 (twelve years ago)
if you're going to assume i read what you wrote 2 days ago you can see the stuff i quoted of edelstein several minutes ago. he says the martin sheen stuff was bad but only because it wasn't nuanced enough ("Obviously, he or she shouldn’t — that clumsily). he still wants the voice of morality, still wants to know What Scorsese Thinks (Which Better Be That These Guys Are Bad) and missed the corollary father figure that scorsese provided that suggests what he thinks (probably along the lines of "these guys are sociopathic idiots but man....i miss quaaludes")
― da croupier, Thursday, 2 January 2014 03:29 (twelve years ago)
again, you're free to be bored by 3 hours of "OMG WE GOT SO RICH WE GOT SO HIGH" but critics who take it to "scorsese b-b-but do you LIKE these people? how COULD you?" need to get over themselves.
― da croupier, Thursday, 2 January 2014 03:34 (twelve years ago)
seemed so obvious to me that he despises these people and thats what led to the lack of nuance
― lag∞n, Thursday, 2 January 2014 03:36 (twelve years ago)
eh it's a comedy, i wasn't mad when the zucker bros revealed they didn't respect Airport either
― da croupier, Thursday, 2 January 2014 03:36 (twelve years ago)
i dont think its impossible to make a subtle depiction of people you hate just in this case it didnt happen
― lag∞n, Thursday, 2 January 2014 03:38 (twelve years ago)
i dont know if its even subtlety exactly that was lacking, they just like werent that intersting
― lag∞n, Thursday, 2 January 2014 03:39 (twelve years ago)
i'm just saying i'm not mad this was a 3 hour cynical comedy about greedy monster people instead of a 3 hour subtle, nuanced depiction of greedy monster people
― da croupier, Thursday, 2 January 2014 03:40 (twelve years ago)
but yeah, not for everybody
I did read your excerpts, and I think you're misrepresenting the review. I can't see how anyone who understands the visceral power of Taxi Driver, which Edelstein does (I don't remember any voice of morality in Taxi Driver) could be scared by The Wolf of Wall Street. "To make The Wolf of Wall Street, Scorsese has had to empty out his head and pound his chest." Again, you may not agree with his appraisal of the film, but calling for some kind of guiding intelligence isn't the same as calling for a voice of morality.
― clemenza, Thursday, 2 January 2014 03:40 (twelve years ago)
especially past the three leads the rest of the characters were like cardboard cutouts
― lag∞n, Thursday, 2 January 2014 03:40 (twelve years ago)
except maybe the dad
and judging from the reviews there are def some subtleties people are missing
― da croupier, Thursday, 2 January 2014 03:41 (twelve years ago)
i dont think the message or formal filmic things were necessarily unsubtle, just the characters and plotting didnt pop for me man, idk w/e it was cool but it couldve been cooler
― lag∞n, Thursday, 2 January 2014 03:43 (twelve years ago)