MovieChat Forums > The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) Discussion > A new thread to discuss why it great or ...

A new thread to discuss why it great or bad, not just if it was either.

posted 10 years ago by MOOVYZ
33 replies | jump to latest

Quite a few people feel strongly in both directions but without too much detail as to reasons. A few said there was too much sex or drugs, others said boring or immature.

My take on this movie is that I'd give it a strong 7 (not 8) for putting a smile on my face for 3 hours and for some great characters and acting.. But I give it a 4 for the message it sends, the over-the-top ridiculousness of it and a lousy ending.

While I'm sure just about everything in the movie happened once, these were not utter lunatics. No one could do the quanities of drugs they did and be successful and anything short of getting arrested. You can't function with 2 ludes in you let alone 5 or 6. I believe sex was done in the office, once in a while and probably behind closed doors. No one was having orgies in the offices of any wall street firm with any regularity.

The movie was way over the top. And it'd based on a book written by the guy who *beep* everything up. He's going to paint a picture he wants us to see to sell books ans movie rights.

On a slightly different subject does anyone know if whe really lost the yacht and plane as in the movie? If so, I'd bet that neither was lost but sold secretly to hide the money then told the FBI they were gone.

"He's not Judge Judy and executioner!"

[–] cheeso65 10 years ago

While I'm sure just about everything in the movie happened once

It's a fictionalized account based on a true story, which is not to say it's a true story.

[–] seanmaster25 10 years ago

I've typed too much about what I think of this movie, so I'm keeping it short.

This film is a masterpiece, one to be recalled upon for years. Not for its absurdity, its comedy, or its outrages depictions of wealth, but for its brilliance in holding up a mirror to a culture gone horribly awry and saying "Look, this is who you are, or who you want to be". Greed has overtaken the traditional American dream, and its only a matter of time before all of this, the empire of Western capitalism, comes to a screeching halt. It is not one man's doing, but an entire system built on corruption.

So who's happy about it? The pathological con men at the top? Helplessly and hopelessly brandying up new ways to avoid self-incrimination? Avoiding their own reflection, clinging to their own addictions? Are the sheep any better off? Some, perhaps, those who have turned their back on selling the pen, and have learned the truth to happiness, but for the rest of us -- we ceaselessly try to become the wolf, gnawing and clawing our way to inch further up the ladder, and never getting there. It's a sick cycle of being unable to love, trust, or befriend one another. Money is all that matters.

[–] MOOVYZ 10 years ago

I disagree that the film asks anything of the viewer in terms of right and wrong, moral or not. It parades the excesses of"unreasonably" earned wealth and shows us one extreme (most who have the opportunity, regardless of how earned live like this to some degree).

Now, we morally bound people who, perhaps because we don't have this option, may ask the question of right or wrong but the film-maker does not. Scorsese has never been one to ask questions. He simply opens a window to the subject and asks us to peer through and make our own judgments.

In my opinion one quote has always been close to pointing out the truth in this situation... "money is the root of all evil". But that's not quite right IMHO. The quote should be "greed combined with excess is the root of all evil". Even greed is okay if the greedy person wants the money to benefit his fellow man. But it's the totally over-the-top selfish excess one allows himself to display, at the cost of his soul that really makes for an ugly world, such as we have.

The film shows these things but because the film-maker is also one of the well-to-dos he doesn't feel right asking us if it's right or wrong. If he answered he'd have to admit his selfishness or be a hypocrite.

"He's not Judge Judy and executioner!"

[–] seanmaster25 10 years ago

Scorsese constantly asks moral questions in his films, though they are far beneath the surface of his narratives. I'm not sure if you've seen the rest of his work but he's been doing this his entire career. It's his obsession, you actually said it yourself: "(he) asks us to peer through and make our own judgments."

Scorsese engages viewers on a gut level. He gives us a glimpse of a world we're not allowed into, as voyeurs of criminality. We get to witness the allure of it, see the world how the characters see it, with all the niceties and correctness stripped away. By the end they've been broken, we know who they really are, and they haven't changed. But here we are, glued to our seats, itching for more.

Why are we so enamored by these people? What is it in human nature that creates this attraction? This is the central theme that ties his work together: how can one strive to be good in a world rigged by the bad? In this sense he and Coppola are very similar thematically.

But I agree this film points at our collective greed, our culture of it, as the root of the problem. Not one man, nor a group of men, nor money itself, but the complicity of all of us to play these power games. It makes liars, schemers, and manipulators of us all. I think the ending pen sequence poses the moral dilemma of modern capitalism: are we going to keep playing?

[–] MOOVYZ 10 years ago

Scorsese engages viewers on a gut level. He gives us a glimpse of a world we're not allowed into, as voyeurs of criminality. We get to witness the allure of it, see the world how the characters see it, with all the niceties and correctness stripped away. By the end they've been broken, we know who they really are, and they haven't changed. But here we are, glued to our seats, itching for more.

This paragraph is perfectly stated.

That being said, I don't think Scorsese (and I have seen all his work) intends to ask any questions of us. The way the stories are told is simply to lay it all out there, mostly truthful, often exaggerated. He simply gives us glasses to see what he wants us to see. If he is asking any moral questions in the films, it is for his benefit only and he does not provide the viewer with even a glimpse of what he believes to be the answers to those questions. That's one of the reasons why his films are so well received... he does not take sides.

"He's not Judge Judy and executioner!"

[–] seanmaster25 10 years ago

Yeah very much so. He's an explorer with the camera, but never panders or insults his audience with injecting his films with judgments, or intentions that are already laid out for us. I think he objectively portrays scandalous characters by letting them take us fully into their subjective reality. For my money he's the best American-born filmmaker to ever live besides Kubrick.

[–] kmags84 10 years ago

That would be Oliver Stone lol and why I generally dislike his work. He takes every topic and shoves his opinion down our throat. He did it with Platoon, Wall St, JFK etc... He's made a career of pleasing the left. Im not picking political sides. Scorsese is a Democrat himself... But look at how different they've covered Wall St. To me, its a 180° turn.

[–] kmags84 10 years ago

And yes... Kubrick/Scorsese will forever remain my 2 favorite filmmakers. I don't think enough people appreciate that one is still alive and mastering the art. I think at its most basic level, WOWS showed that Scorsese is still the best man behind the Camera on this Planet. So many shots are insanely perfect. The color, the lighting, the movement of the camera... It flows incredibly well for a 3hr film.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] k_who 10 years ago

I can only say that the one thing I loved about this movie is DiCaprio's acting. Were it not for that, I'd have stopped watching after 20 minutes. I am not saying this is a bad movie, may be it is just not for me.

I am not a fragile little flower by any standarts, but the vulgar, depressing world, real or exaggerated, populated with sub-humans that this movie depicts, is of no interest to me. I don't care how many kinds of hookers there are, what they cost, what kind of drugs and in what amounts you can do off their ass-cracks, the rousing speeches about the greatness of money left me cold.
What I like to see in movies are human stories. There were no humans in this story. None that I would recognize as such.
Like parasitic fleshworms - I know they exist and that's about all I care to know about them. And obviously Scorcese failed to change my position on this. So to me this was a 3star rating. And only because of how insanely good Di Caprio was, but then he is one of the greatest actors of his generation.

Pain is inexhaustible. It's only people that get exhausted.

[–] MOOVYZ 10 years ago

Well then... there are at least 2 of us in the world who feel like this. Personally, it embarrasses me to be an American when I see stuff like this. Maybe I'm just old.

BTW, I'm curious about that last bit... everyone who reads this thread... state your feelings about your love or hatred of this lifestyle. Then list your age/sex. Lets see how age and sex affect our moral compasses.

I'm 59/M

"He's not Judge Judy and executioner!"

[–] Ziya90 10 years ago

Hi, well, I hated the film. However, my reasons are totally different than the majority.
I have no problem with nudity, graphic sex or bad attitudes in cinema. I hated the film, because, just in my opinion, there was no cinema magic like previous Scorsese films such as Goodfellas, Taxi Driver, Age of Innocence or Raging Bull. It was like a long tv episode with a first class star list. I had the same problem with American Hustle. I think both movies suffer from the same problem. I felt nothing towards the movie, no sympathy for the characters, no excitement, no catharsis etc. The delivery, the execution were just flat. Before watching the movie, I had known that I would face with a boring movie without any spark or stir and I was right. Even Scorsese has changed like some other master directors such as Ridley Scott. While The Counsellor was a mediocre mess, Blade Runner or even Gladiator was pure masterpiece. Also, like many other new generation mainstream movies, The Wolf of Wall Street has "no heart and soul in the delivery" syndrome. I repeat, I have no problem with the controversial concept of the movie, but even American Gangster was a moving thrill ride, it was a decent action crime film. The Departed was not a masterpiece, but great, outstanding. I am a fan of Di Caprio, but this Di Caprio Scorsese partnership has started to bother me, also he was not that amazing in this movie. For example, when I watch Tom Cruise in Magnolia, I get goosebumps, no such thing happened in this movie for Di Caprio. By the way, I am male and 28.

[–] k_who 10 years ago

Lets see how age and sex affect our moral compasses.

Sorry, but moral compass has nothing to do with gender and not terribly much with age.
I make no secret of either my age or gender in imdb, but not in such context. It is just putting people in boxes. I am against that.

Pain is inexhaustible. It's only people that get exhausted.

[–] seanmaster25 10 years ago

I do think that our generation (if you're a part of it) has MUCH lower value systems. Nearly everyone I know thinks its somehow OK to litter. WTF is that? I can't stand littering. Then there's other, more directly immoral things this generation rampantly engages in, like cheating in a relationship. I agree with the above poster, it's a sad day to live in this society. I am not proud to be an American, at all. This culture of money-worship, rampant consumerism, and selfishness isn't something to be proud of.

[–] cheeso65 10 years ago

There were no humans in this story.

That's kind of the point.

[–] k_who 10 years ago

Then the point of it made it pointless. There could have been a human being there - a victim, or even better - one of the participants not being comfortable with what they did questioning it and the life-style. That would have given depth to this movie and elevated it from being merely neutral portrayal of a debauched bunch of sub-humans. People are flawed, complex and interesting, there was nothing remotely intriguing about those animals.

Pain is inexhaustible. It's only people that get exhausted.

[–] cheeso65 10 years ago

Well, you're getting closer.

[–] seanmaster25 10 years ago

The point is, if these guys are such animistic scum, why is our society run by them? Why do the rest of us want to be them? Why is this system of manipulation and greed, things that lead to awful cycles of egotism and sociopathic spirals, still being triumphed by the world as good? IMO capitalism is an inherent evil in its modern form and definition. Nothing productive can come of it. Only rampant consumption, exploitation, and globalization. All of which lead to both personal and worldwide destruction.

[–] kmags84 10 years ago

Capitalism isn't the problem. Politicians are the problem. Im still looking for Socialist and Communist countries that get it right... Hasn't happened. Unless you count China... But try paying Americans .30¢ an Hour. They want $15 for flipping burgers, is that not greed? Entitlement is an issue. People who assume they deserve what they haven't earned. There are plenty of issues with this country. Belfort was definitely one of them but so are the youth who think Bernie Sanders is the right idea of Progressive Leadership

[–] seanmaster25 10 years ago

You should look into the countries of Scandanavia if you haven't seen socialism put to good use. Good socialism has been happening for a few decades now. Entitlement isn't the issue at all, it is indeed greed. Do you think people who want living wages are being greedy? Who want to support their family? Is that greed, or is it the Belforts, the bankers, the corporate elite who control our economy and monopolize our industries?

If you think socialist economies like those done in the Nordic region, Canada, Germany, ect. haven't got it right, where has capitalism thrived in? Please don't tell me its thriving in america, because hundreds of millions living in poverty would say otherwise.

[–] kmags84 10 years ago

No, I'd say its a combination of both. Belfort's greed is the problem, entitlement is the problem, INFLATION is the problem. A burger joint isn't a career. Its a stepping stone to other things. Its a teenagers job. Capitalism has worked and is beginning to again... But when spending and taxing skyrocket, the economy feels the boom. Reagan had this country in prosperity. 4% unemployment, 17 million job increases, all before the "1 year and you're off the workforce" manipulation... Scandinavia is its own little area. It doesn't have immigration to worry about. No racial divide etc... Put 300 million people in Norway, then take on the woes of the world, become a melting pot, then Socialism can be talked about. The US has done worse when welfare policies and spending took over lower taxation and lowered spending. Scandinavia... A talk for another Website

[–] seanmaster25 9 years ago

"Capitalism has worked and is beginning to again."

Where? How? In what countries is capitalism working in? We both have our opinions of how civilizations should operate, but if you really think the presidency of Reagan helped this country in the end you are fooling yourself. Jordan belfort is a direct result of the deregulation of the 80s, as was the entire wall street manipulations that continued for years. He helped the capitalist class. The rest of us not so much.

[–] kmags84 10 years ago

Check out the Wealth Inequalities in those countries... Its foolish to even compare a World POWER to Scandinavia

[–] seanmaster25 9 years ago

Umm.. is this a joke? You want to compare the wealth inequalities of those countries to america, where 1% of the population holds something like 90% of the wealth? Seriously I'm baffled by your point here.

[–] MOOVYZ 10 years ago

My statements have exactly the same amount of first hand knowledge as yours. But mine have one thing yours doesn't. Logic. Belfort's life was wild but basically a horror show. The film-makers want to portray it as Disneyland on Wall St.

I was raised in CA in the 60s and 70s. I know everything about every drug known to man. I did them all, and I did them to excess. I'm extremely lucky to be alive. Many of my friends died in car accidents or from overdoses and all from using more than I did. But still, the quantities shown in the film are NOT possible in almost all cases. No human has ever taken 5 or more Rorer 714s, drank alcohol in that quantity and not had their heart stop. It's simply NOT possible. Ask a doctor.

"He's not Judge Judy and executioner!"

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MOOVYZ 9 years ago

I've seen the movie twice, from beginning to end.

It is my humble opinion that it is a "way-over-the-top" portrayal "based on actual events".

We will simply have to agree to disagree.

P.S. Growing up in a drug culture in CA does make me very informed from experience, perhaps not a medical expert, but I certainly know how much is too much. You are correct about the coke, there is virtually no limit to some people (an a simple snort CAN kill another by paralyzing the respiratory nerve). But that is a stimulant. Quaaludes or "Ludes" are tranquilizers (often referred to as horse tranquilizers due to their strength although that is a myth) and above a certain % of blood content they will severely slow or stop the respiration of any human. Add alcohol and it's a death sentence.

From Wiki...
"The standard one tablet adult dosage of Quaalude was 75 mg; a dose of 8000 mg is lethal. However, a dose as little as 2000 mg could also be lethal, especially if taken with an alcoholic beverage.)

I've personally seen many friends take 1 and be out of it. Anyone who ever took 2 or more... well, we simply woke them in the morning.

"He's not Judge Judy and executioner!"

[–] seanmaster25 9 years ago

The film is a self-proclaimed exaggeration. It's supposed to be. I'm not sure how anyone could walk away thinking this was meant to be a realist film.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jakecartersoar 9 years ago

You've got to remember it is a film at the end of the day. It's not supposed to be a 100% true account of what happened. If you wanted to know a more accurate account of what actually happened, read books about it or read up about it on the Internet.

[–] chazzmarra 9 years ago

Ah grasshopper , you are close , but still far away. Money is not inherently evil. It is a mere medium of exchange. The love of money is the root of all evil , and that is where greed takes over. Society and all the isms will never get it right. Even a perfect system is made up of mankind , which is inherently flawed , with members constantly trying to gain advantage over others , getting more than what they need. As to all the anti capitalists. We've tried the hippie commune . Lol. Btw you always have the option of chexing out a nice 3rd world *beep* hole. Quitya yappin and be thankful. *beep* or get off the pot. Ngaf bout ya whining self serving moral platitudes.

[–] jzerba 9 years ago

I don't think it's ridiculous that they could take 5 or 6 ludes, I've heard of people that would take that many before. they had been using them for years so their tolerance would be very high.