StanSP Posted 24 February 2014 Posted 24 February 2014 Just thinking at times what the set must have been like watching that, I was in tears by the time he pushed the door up with his leg. I honestly wasn't at all bored for the whole 3 hours, I thought it was funny enough to carry it into the last act where things start to unravel. Must have been creasing all the way through. Nah same. When people were saying how long it must be a part of you thinks it'll be too long. But once you're in the film, you don't realise 3 hours at all. It's pretty crazy how the first time you see the FBI agent is about 90mins in to the film.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 24 February 2014 Posted 24 February 2014 I know that Mark Kermode said that whilst it was a well acted, well put together film, the glorification of what was ultimately a very shallow life was just cold and that you couldn't feel for the main character - and that from a critic who's not particularly known for altruism.
Haydos Posted 25 February 2014 Author Posted 25 February 2014 I know that Mark Kermode said that whilst it was a well acted, well put together film, the glorification of what was ultimately a very shallow life was just cold and that you couldn't feel for the main character - and that from a critic who's not particularly known for altruism. I don't think you were supposed to empathise with the Leo, that much is obvious from the obscene, immoral life he leads and is made obvious during moments such as the attempted kidnap of his daughter. I have no idea about film analysis but it felt like I was very much a spectator rather than being drawn in to the story. I'm not sure about 'glorification' either, his drug addiction was part of him and a catalyst for his downfall and that again is very overt.
Guest Posted 25 February 2014 Posted 25 February 2014 Loved the film. Very funny, well acted and just outrageous at points. It does follow a fairly familiar Scorcese story arc though if I'm honest but that doesn't detract from it.
Captain... Posted 25 February 2014 Posted 25 February 2014 I know that Mark Kermode said that whilst it was a well acted, well put together film, the glorification of what was ultimately a very shallow life was just cold and that you couldn't feel for the main character - and that from a critic who's not particularly known for altruism. I'm not sure how else they could have done it, I mean it was a true story, they just took a true story a delivered it as best they could. They shouldn't have included a huge dose of morality or a Hollywood moment of personal self discovery. Some dude got rich and got fvcked up, got busted, doesn't really regret it all that much, they made a great film out of it. Mark Kermode can suck a dick
SOCCERROO FOX Posted 25 February 2014 Posted 25 February 2014 Has any one else read the book? Not seen the movie but have read the book and have no doubt it will be a good film. My issue is that Jordan Belfort is a criminal who defrauded innocent people out of millions and now it's been glamorized in a film for people to idolize him.
ARTY_FOX Posted 25 February 2014 Posted 25 February 2014 It's a brilliant film i really enjoyed it. Heard some mixed reveiws but it is definatly worth a watch.
Tommy G Posted 25 February 2014 Posted 25 February 2014 The bird in it is astonishing My Mrs thought so aswell and finds it totally acceptable that most blokes wan't to smash her back doors in film was excellent just too many drugs for me, bit OTT.
FoxesAreBlue Posted 25 February 2014 Posted 25 February 2014 Reminded me of my old sales job which always a (legal) boiler room type sales job. Unfortunately, that also included the drugs, although to a lesser extent tha involved in the films and I never got involved with that shit. LOTS of alcohol though, that got a bit out of hand. What I can say is I do miss the feel of making a massive deal. The rush was incredible knowing that you had a huge wedge of commission coming your way. Though that may have been the Red Bull they practically force fed us
Guest Posted 25 February 2014 Posted 25 February 2014 this has been discussed in the films thread (surprisingly) surely your wank material doesn't need it's own thread.
Zingari Posted 25 February 2014 Posted 25 February 2014 Has any one else read the book? Not seen the movie but have read the book and have no doubt it will be a good film. My issue is that Jordan Belfort is a criminal who defrauded innocent people out of millions and now it's been glamorized in a film for people to idolize him. yes you're right , and sadly this happens all too often from tho old westerns , to godfather type gangsters etc etc but i suppose no one would watch a film about people going about feeding the poor or doing charity work
MooseBreath Posted 25 February 2014 Posted 25 February 2014 Didn't sense any glamourisation of his lifestyle when I watched it. If anything what was notable was how the film avoided steering you towards any conclusion on the morality of it, while most movies make it pretty obvious which way they think you should go, the wolf just sits firmly on the fence and allows the viewer to decide their own interpretation. Films with positive role models abound if that's all you want to watch anyway.
Zingari Posted 25 February 2014 Posted 25 February 2014 Didn't sense any glamourisation of his lifestyle when I watched it. If anything what was notable was how the film avoided steering you towards any conclusion on the morality of it, while most movies make it pretty obvious which way they think you should go, the wolf just sits firmly on the fence and allows the viewer to decide their own interpretation. Films with positive role models abound if that's all you want to watch anyway. i've not seen his film yet ,so i'm not disputing what you're saying Moose but film makers can glamourise it simply by the casting . Bonnie and Clyde seemed to glamourise the lifestyle with Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway playing the roles , regardless of how close to real life events the story was.or in which direction you were supposed to be moved with regard to their morality i would imagine Leonardo di Caprio and plenty of very attractive lady conquests glamourises it in much the same way .
Guest MattP Posted 26 February 2014 Posted 26 February 2014 yes you're right , and sadly this happens all too often from tho old westerns , to godfather type gangsters etc etc but i suppose no one would watch a film about people going about feeding the poor or doing charity work Oh I think I know a man who might I don't think this stuff is glamorised too much, generally whoever the gangster etc is meets a pretty bad end in most films.
MooseBreath Posted 26 February 2014 Posted 26 February 2014 It's a certificate 18 anyway. I'd hate to live in a world where something as tame as the wolf is censored because people really think adults are going to be negatively influenced by it.
Zingari Posted 26 February 2014 Posted 26 February 2014 It's a certificate 18 anyway. I'd hate to live in a world where something as tame as the wolf is censored because people really think adults are going to be negatively influenced by it. i don't want it censored or anything, and i doubt if adults are negatively influenced by it to do anything out of their normal character. i know it's only escapist fantasy. All i'm saying is there is a glamorous image projected onto characters such as Bonnie and Clyde , John Dillinger ,Al Capone , Gordon Gecko , Butch Cassidy and the sundance kid etc etc simply by casting glamorous actors for the role . it makes us want to be a little bit like them in possibly a superficial way . would we feel the same if Charles Hawtry or Charlie Drake had been cast in these roles ? i doubt it i really don't see it as a big problem , i was just saying what i thought about how casting can ( and probably does ) alter our perception of the character . i'm not on a crusade to change anything
Haydos Posted 26 February 2014 Author Posted 26 February 2014 i don't want it censored or anything, and i doubt if adults are negatively influenced by it to do anything out of their normal character. i know it's only escapist fantasy. All i'm saying is there is a glamorous image projected onto characters such as Bonnie and Clyde , John Dillinger ,Al Capone , Gordon Gecko , Butch Cassidy and the sundance kid etc etc simply by casting glamorous actors for the role . it makes us want to be a little bit like them in possibly a superficial way . would we feel the same if Charles Hawtry or Charlie Drake had been cast in these roles ? i doubt it i really don't see it as a big problem , i was just saying what i thought about how casting can ( and probably does ) alter our perception of the character . i'm not on a crusade to change anything There's reasons people like these films though. People want to see someone cool, to fantasise, to see someone get away with something, to see a plan come to fruition. The film/game/entertainment industry would be a pretty weird place if everything was just heroes.
Zingari Posted 26 February 2014 Posted 26 February 2014 There's reasons people like these films though. People want to see someone cool, to fantasise, to see someone get away with something, to see a plan come to fruition. The film/game/entertainment industry would be a pretty weird place if everything was just heroes. yes i agree , that's pretty much what i was trying to say .
Guest Mickyblueeyes Posted 26 February 2014 Posted 26 February 2014 The best film I have seen for years. I didnt even realise how long it was and to be honest was kept entertained throughout. The bit where they take those pills which had a delayed effect had me in stitches.
Haydos Posted 26 February 2014 Author Posted 26 February 2014 yes i agree , that's pretty much what i was trying to say . Fair enough This is kind of why I don't get the criticism. A lot of people clearly found it entertaining and funny so I don't think it can be considered a 'bad' film. I keep hearing the 'glamorising' word thrown about but like you say we've seen that with gangsters and villains for decades. At the end of the day it's an 18 and the entertainment industry is there to entertain. If this was a kids film I'd feel a bit different.
Tom's Pasta Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 Better than I thought it would be. The whole business, stock market thing doesn't really interest me but the film made it entertaining with a good blend of drama, humour, sex and violence. Probably half an hour too long for me but definitely worth a watch. 8/10
adie1979 Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 Well i'd heard a few people moaning about how long it was and that they ended up hating the characters in it at the end. But after reading this it sounds like its worth a watch. Will give it a go tonight.
Buzzell Posted 1 March 2014 Posted 1 March 2014 Watched this last night. Made me laugh in some parts, especially the bit where he falls out his helicopter and falls into the pool. It's a very long film which was a downside but the bird in it makes up for that, she is majestic. The booby scenes
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.