The Wolf of Wall Street (new Scorsese)

Robbie's tease bit was the only thing I remembered she did, but then I like blonde men.

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.

martin sheen in wall street, to be clear.

the father in this movie was great

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.

rare is the ilxor that should be calling a huffy pretentious equalizer fan absurd

so awesome that martin can still scare fuddies with excessive dark humor only now the fuddies are twenty plus years younger than him

I hated it because its dark humour scared me?

def scared edelstein and zacharek - don't think i scrolled up to whatever your issue was so don't take it personal

da croup, my man.

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.

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")

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.

seemed so obvious to me that he despises these people and thats what led to the lack of nuance

eh it's a comedy, i wasn't mad when the zucker bros revealed they didn't respect Airport either

i dont think its impossible to make a subtle depiction of people you hate just in this case it didnt happen

i dont know if its even subtlety exactly that was lacking, they just like werent that intersting

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

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.

especially past the three leads the rest of the characters were like cardboard cutouts

except maybe the dad

and judging from the reviews there are def some subtleties people are missing

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

edelstein's gripe seems like a version of ts eliot's gripe about Hamlet lacking an "objective correlative" (ie, a measuring stick for figuring out just what Ham's whole deal is). of course that lack is precisely the thing which makes the play so infinitely fascinating.

like I've written already it's obvious Scorsese doesn't like them, it's just too long and I too recently resaw Sharon Stone in drug psychosis in Casino.

David Edelstein and T.S. Eliot, fighting in the captain's tower.

edelstein's gripe seems like a version of ts eliot's gripe about Hamlet lacking an "objective correlative" (ie, a measuring stick for figuring out just what Ham's whole deal is). of course that lack is precisely the thing which makes the play so infinitely fascinating.

― ryan, Wednesday, January 1, 2014 10:43 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the shots of the suicided guy and the the subway and maybe all the fbi guy stuff in his humble office i think were supposed to fulfill that function as someone m/l said upthread

the father in this movie was great Meathead

my objections to the movie have nothing to do w/ any suspicions that MS and Leo "like" Belfort. Dozens of scenes wander on endlessly.
I might've liked the Quaaludes episode if it came at a point in the film where I wasn't already praying for it to end, but just as "cartoonlike" popped into my head, he crosscuts to Popeye on the TV. The light touch.

so uh, is Jordan Belfort Jewish? bcz elderly Rob Reiner is a bigger signifier of Jewishness than Mel Brooks.

lol at morbs - 'wait the dad's an accountant and the son's a stockbroker - gotta be jews right?'

Jordan Belfort is Jewish.

RR sounds like a Borscht Belt comic, fuckface. xp

it is kinda weird to think that this schmuck has inspired two movies now, it's not like his story is so amazing it needs several takes, he's not amy fisher.

his book is prob just one of those things where you read it and are all wow so cinimatic

Hill and DiCaprio are the Leopold + Loeb of penny ante financial scams.

boiler room's so fictionalized that who knows who is who but i'd like to think vin diesel and jonah hill played the same guy.

i guess it was leos thing, he owned the rights and had been wanting to make it for a while then roped marty in

i use their nicknames cause im in leos entorage

we do get to see the 'consequences' so we get to actually see confirmation that these asshole stockbrokers that are basically stealing normal ppl's money are in fact bad guys. like in wolf of wall street who knows, maybe belfort ripped off a bunch of child molesters, we have no way of knowing, the movie's too ambiguous.

it seems like the only reason scorsese still makes movies is because leo finds something and pushes it on him

its true i think about the child molesters

we do get to see the 'consequences' so we get to actually see confirmation that these asshole stockbrokers that are basically stealing normal ppl's money are in fact bad guys. like in wolf of wall street who knows, maybe belfort ripped off a bunch of child molesters, we have no way of knowing, the movie's too ambiguous.

― balls, Wednesday, January 1, 2014 11:11 PM (50 seconds ago) Bookmark

lol

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/5/2/1367493269846/David-Blaine-001.jpg

lagoon earlier today

lol xp

im being so misconstrued itt, its not fair

sending Kyle Chandler to talk to you on your yacht, lag.

It was said up thread but that yacht scene was just, wow: from genial jousting to GET THE FUCK OFF MY YACHT

im just an honest appreciatior of film who likes fleshed out multidimensional characters decisive plotting

on the yacht he was more mad at himself than anything

Maybe it's just cuz of the little Kyle chandler stuff I've seen but during his initial cutaways I was like "ugh that dude is always a Boy Scout/FBI agent" and then when he finally gets some lines his slow burn fuck you to Leo was pretty unexpected and awesome. Loved the ambiguity of his subway ride too.