MovieChat Forums > The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) Discussion > Come on guys

Come on guys

posted 10 years ago by LilZe28
17 replies | jump to latest

The major issue with movies over that last 15 years is that producers are watering down the content so they can be rated lower than an 18(in the UK) and can therefore get more viewers, money ect.

And all I'm seeing on this board is people slag this movie for there being too much nudity, drugs ect. When that's the ONE thing I admire, because they've not sold themselves out in that regard.

Scorsese has shown us all an insight into a world that isnt concievable to the average person! I for one found it incredible seeing what the most successful men in New York get up to in there free time which is why this movie will be a classic for many years to come. So please don't try and cheaply categorise this when we all know its got a lot more depth to it...

And to critise them glamorising the lifestyle they live is absurd because of course they're going to do so.. They live the life of kings what were you expecting? You may as well go ahead and critise goodfellas while you're at it...

[–] rbastiero 10 years ago

yes, because I think some of it are not relevant in the movie (ex. depicting the 3 kinds of girl on stantons,3 bed scene with his wife, sex scene on the toilet,blowjob on the elevator,etc) ....hey, and the most successful men you were saying do it illegally. they are taking other peoples money and live a glamorous lifestyle. and when apprehended by law get away with it by serving only a few years in prison and paying damages, which in the first place he steals it. and in the finale, speaking on seminars. The protagonist of the movie is a bad person. and this is a true story, that's why I hate it. I don't care about the directing, the acting or the cinematography. Imagine yourself if you are one of the victims of belfort and you had seen these movie.

[–] LilZe28 10 years ago

Point one. Many other firms on wall street behaved as crude as these guys with LEGAL money. So the fact they are crooks has nothing to do with how fascinating an in sight into how succesful, well educated business men behave on a day to basis. I for one have never seen a world like this with my own eyes. so to slag this movie because you don't deem their antics "relevant" is laughable.

Point two. Do you honestly expect producers to only make movies about good, law abiding citizens? No-one is agreeing with what hes done but it is still an ingenious strategy he used to get all that money which is why it's interesting.

[–] rbastiero 10 years ago

Point One. I slag this movie because the story does not gives moral lessons to viewers, it only gives inspiration to crooks and con man. At least those wall street guys, earn their money the legal way, so let them behave anyway they want.

Point Two. Producers make movies to earn money. Some don't care about the content as long as it has a market. At least in other movies with bad characters, Bonnie and Clyde, Public Enemy John Dillinger, got killed at the end. So lesson is learned. I think the producers agree with what he's done that's why they make this movie hoping it will interest people like you and they succeed. These money embezzlement scheme is not new, but its the first time they made a movie about it. With the mastermind as the main character.

Point Three. Let's talk about the movie in a critics eye view and forget about the moral of the story. The ingenious strategy you are saying was only shown a little part, the big part was about celebration, getting drunk, taking drugs, having sex, orgies, etc. They could have edit those and shorten to 1hr 45mins but this movie last almost 3 hrs. The scene where Leonardo is so high and crawling like a worm, i think they just include it to give him a chance to act for the purpose of a slot for best actor in academy award.

Point Four: Well at least majority agree, these movie did not win an Oscar and it was only on top 100th of Rotten Tomatoes list for 2013, even farther than This Is the End, another stupid movie.

[–] cheeso65 10 years ago

The scene where Leonardo is so high and crawling like a worm, i think they just include it to give him a chance to act for the purpose of a slot for best actor in academy award.

No one in their right mind, least of all Scorsese and DiCaprio, would think that would get him an academy award.

[–] LilZe28 10 years ago

It's a biopic. How do you expecting the producers to kill him off or finish him off in a bad light if it never happened?

From your "people like you" comment, its performance at the Oscars and its rating on rotten tomatoes you seem to giving off the assumption that this film isn't widely liked? Don't for one second think that I'm in the minority here. It's rating on this site is an 8.2 which is huge considering its a comedy. And furthermore, this film was an instant classic. I have no doubt I'm my mind that this movie will stand the test of time where as 10 years a slave (the Oscar winner that year since you seem to think that's a valid argument) already been forgotten.

The majority definitely do not agree with you...

[–] seanmaster25 10 years ago

I think you aren't grasping the depth that the film carries. This film is a masterpiece that will stand the test of time, but far from being so for the reasons you listed. The merits of a film is never simply how funny or outrageous it is...

[–] resmat-1 10 years ago

I slag this movie because the story does not gives moral lessons to viewers, it only gives inspiration to crooks and con man.

The moral of the film is that, despite knowing how bad a person Belfort and people like him are, normal people still idolize that lifestyle and look to the people who've lived it for answers. That's what the lingering final shot of the film is about.

The film pushes its depiction of debauchery to an exhausting length and it doesn't shy away from the fact that Jordan is a despicable person, so I disagree with your idea that the film is nothing but an amoral celebration of hedonism.

[–] rtlh1982 9 years ago

I found the seemingly endless drunkenness and debauchery tiresome so I fast-forwarded towards the ending. Were we supposed to sympathize with the crooks? It would have be a better film with more emphasis on the investigators who took them down.

[–] cheeso65 9 years ago

Were we supposed to sympathize with the crooks?

No. What gave you that idea?

[–] seanmaster25 10 years ago

I will try to clear some things up for you.

1. There is a moral lesson, but its hidden deep within the films subtext. To put it succinctly; will we, as people of this society, really keep falling for the ludicrous and elaborate schemes that the rich man con us into? Will we continue to sell him that pen?

2. The filmmakers clearly don't agree with what he's done. See any Scorsese interview to confirm this, "I'm furious with it." He's just not the type of filmmaker, and thankfully so, to sneer or look down upon his characters with a wagging finger. We have to do some thinking ourselves to figure out what to make of all this. I'll give you a starting point; this is a story, told by a con artist, for the sake of profit. The theme of manipulation can be extracted from there.

3. The indulgence and hedonism is a reflection of the American dream -- all we want is to make money. That's it. Nothing else. No humanism or communion is involved in modern capitalism and this film is a cry for help for our society. It is the culture of greed that creates the Belforts of the world, not one man.

The real thing to recognize is this: this is a story where, at the end, a man has lost his family, sold out and lost all of his friends, has multiple drug addictions, beats his wife, goes to jail, and nearly kills his daughter. So, is he a man to look up to? Is he happy? You'll see the proof's in the pudding. You cannot live life running from yourself, not matter how much money, sex, and drugs you stuff yourself with. "What is hell? The suffering of being unable to love".

[–] rbastiero 10 years ago

I like your explanation better.
1. I get your point, after all he's done, he is still unhappy with his life, (but hey we don't know he has now a new wife, a business, a job, and also earned from this movie). But what I don't get is that he's worse than a bank robber, stealing money 100 folds as much but gets away with it. Just because he betrayed some of his friends and sent to prison. Now the mastermind's walking freely while his subordinates are in prison. Rather than another non-fiction Scorsese movie Goodfellas, after Ray Liotta betrayed his friends, he's now in protective custody hiding for the rest of his life. He should be hiding by now. But there's nothing we can do cause that the way the real story goes. So I still think they shouldn't had made this movie in the first place.

2. I also heard that Belfort received 1 million in property right for this movie, that made him more richer. If the filmmakers don't agree, why made a movie and give him money. Again, the reason is money. Sometimes I don't understand Scorsese, or maybe Di Caprio, since he produced it and just asked Scorsese to direct it. Since they had so many collaboration before.

I know its a biopic, what I'm trying to say they should had not made this movie in the first place. Considering this is a black comedy, it's not funny. If you want black comedy watch Four Lions. This will not be a classic, it's not even included in the 300 movies to watch before you die. And it's almost a 3 hour movie, nobody's making movie that too long now. What is this Gone With The Wind, Citizen Cane?

If you want to watch a good movie or learn the history of film making watch the classic from Charlie Chaplin to Casablanca to Dr. Strangelove to Clockwork Orange to Taxi Driver to The Shining to etc.

I am sorry, I am being rude. Its just my first impression is that there's something in here that I don't like despite Scorsese and Di Caprio and that impression last. It's not that I had been a victim of a money embezzlement scheme. No, I never had. I wouldn't easily trust anyone with my money. Well, whatever, however good it is on the eyes of others it still does not enter my top 300 movies. I'm still exploring the latest movies and old movies that I hadn't watch also foreign language films... so for now forget belfort and just be happy exploring.

[–] seanmaster25 10 years ago

I think its such a little known awareness in our world that money truly cannot buy happiness, it is impossible. There's a study that shows that money has a significant effect on happiness, but here's the kicker; the drastic affect that money holds for your psychological well-being stops almost entirely after $50,000 a year.

So after you gain the basic necessities (food, clothes, shelter) money has marginal affects on happiness. When they charted this trend, by the time you get to the millions of dollars, it has no affect whatsoever. (i.e. a multi-millionaire making another million means nothing to him)

The law of karma doesn't work externally but internally, where intentions are everything. To quote another great film, The Tree of Life: "Nature only wants to please itself. Get others to please it too. To have its own way. It finds reasons to be unhappy, when all the world is shining around it. Love is smiling through all things. And unless you love, your life will flash by."

You're not being rude at all, this is the type of reaction that Scorsese actually intended to illicit. We as a society cannot let these things go on anymore, and its in everything, this mentality that bottom line profits can justify whatever came before. Its a sickness, and the film asks if you want to engage in it. Your answer, as it should be, is no. Leave me out.

But you shouldn't let such a thing bother you. The more you live, the more you see that evil wins the battle, but always loses the war, because all they end up fighting are themselves. Men like Belfort cannot face themselves. They can't look themselves in the mirror. They spend all of life hiding from what they've done, desperately needing another fix to escape their thoughts. Its not an enviable life. You'll likely recognize that someday.

[–] mrpinbert 9 years ago

Point One. I slag this movie because the story does not gives moral lessons to viewers

Not every work of art is intended to instill moral lessons in the viewer. A film like Wolf of Wallstreet is made more with the intention of having the viewer think to themselves about what they saw in the film. However in the ending it does actually have a moral lesson. The last shot of the film shows that people, despite all the wrong things that Belford has done, idolize him and want to be just like him.

So in the end the film asks the viewer if such a vapid out of control lifestyle is really something they want.

Zardoz (1974) has spoken!
My top 100 http://www.imdb.com/list/ls079512886/

[–] feodoric 9 years ago

Point two. Do you honestly expect producers to only make movies about good, law abiding citizens? No-one is agreeing with what hes done but it is still an ingenious strategy he used to get all that money which is why it's interesting.

Hayes, Hayes, Hayes ! 😁

Is it safe? What is safe? Is it safe? Yes, very safe? Is it safe? No, not at all! Is it safe? Aaahh!

[–] andrewblunt85 9 years ago

I thought the movie was child-like.

The selling point being sex and drugs; In the hope that young people find that concept humerus. That concept didnt let go throughout the whole movie, and became unrealistic when the characters failed to show any humanity, empathy, development.

The characters had little goodness inside them, to the point were I Supported the FBI agent.

Thus, I thought the movie was made for people under-21, hence the sex being watered down to allow more people to watch it.

I did smile at times, and the acting was spot-on, I wouldn't expect anything less from the people involved. But its Far from being considered a classic at all.

Sorry.

[–] cheeso65 9 years ago

became unrealistic when the characters failed to show any humanity, empathy, development.

That's actually the most realistic part of the movie, and pretty much the whole point of it.

[–] Ironman54 9 years ago

"Wheres My arc ....?"

Christopher Moltisanti