140 Character Movie Review – #140RVW
Much better & shorter when it was called Goodfellas, it achieves something no other Scorsese picture has: irrelevance. For fanatics only…
Spoiler-free Movie Review of The Wolf of Wall Street:
I was very upset when I watched The Wolf of Wall Street because I had not heard that Thelma Schoonmaker, long-time editor of Martin Scorsese’s films, had passed away. I knew she must no longer be with us, because I couldn’t imagine that she ever would have approved of this tedious marathon of a film. Imagine my surprise when I found out that she was alive and well. While of course this is great news, it left me terribly confused about what happened with this picture.
I suppose there’s nothing really wrong with The Wolf of Wall Street; it just serves absolutely no purpose. There’s nothing here you haven’t seen before and seen better.
Let me see if I can describe it for you: based on an embellished but true-life story of an anti-hero who will nevertheless be glamorized for the length of the picture, the story follows the ascent and fall of a remorseless criminal over a lengthy period of time, during which he will repeatedly break the 4th wall to boast of his misdeeds, before ending with a smirk as he gets off without proper punishment. In filming said story, there will be lots of period music, sure to include the Rolling Stones, there will be a strong male supporting actor and there will be absolutely no positive female presence at all. There will be a ton of profanity and objectification of women and absolutely no one will apologize for their behavior, betraying the director’s complete acceptance of and promotion of their criminality.
Sound interesting? It’s called Goodfellas and it came out in 1990. It is also a description of The Wolf of Wall Street.
This film is a longer, less interesting and more sprawling update of Goodfellas, with the criminals using phones instead of pistols. It represents a complete lack of originality or creative effort. Yes, I understand that it’s an entirely different real-life subject with a different story to tell, but really, what is the difference between the two films and why did the story of this guy need to be made into a film. What’s so disheartening about this complete regression by Scorsese is that with his last picture, Hugo, he seemed to be taking a real chance for the first time in a very long time.
Don’t misunderstand – I love Goodfellas, I love Scorsese movies, I love dark, violent stories. I’m not suggesting that Scorsese should limit himself to children’s movies or be afraid to deal in moral ambiguity. But this isn’t ambiguous – he is glamorizing white collar criminals in this picture. Don’t give me the Godfather argument that he isn’t celebrating these characters but simply telling an interesting story. He’s too good at his job; he makes crime look too good in his pictures. The punishment is never adequate and never lessens the “cool” factor of the characters. Disagree? Go to the mall and see if you can find any lithographs or t-shirts of Kundun‘s Dalai Lama in between all of the images of Tony Montana, Don Corleone & Henry Hill.
The film is technically an independent since it was produced by independent companies like Red Granite Pictures, but really, can any 100 million dollar film distributed by Paramount be considered indie? What it does mean is that Scorsese was allowed to do whatever the hell he wanted. And did he ever. The film is staggeringly long – 3 hours of total indulgence by the characters and the filmmakers. Watch this trend carefully – a number of pictures are getting greenlit by production companies with little to no experience in filmmaking. They are dangling huge monies in front of filmmakers, often based on international receipts, and offering creative freedom. This isn’t a bad thing in of itself, but auteur directors don’t need any encouragement to indulge themselves in their vision – they need input and criticism by contemporaries and experienced producers.
The Wolf of Wall Street is the most disappointing film release of the 2013 awards season. If I had never seen any of Scorsese’s other, better movies, I might have been impressed, but the complete moral vacuum of the picture would probably still have been a deal-breaker for me. It’s a long, rambling, uneven, rerun of a film that glamorizes securities fraud and financial corruption. A huge step backwards for the director.
Poster:
Trailer:
Bechdel Test:
Fail
The Representation Test Score: F (0 pts)
(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)
| Main Cast | Leonardo DiCaprio Jordan Belfort, Jonah Hill Donnie Azoff, Margot Robbie Naomi Lapaglia, Matthew McConaughey Mark Hanna |
| Rating | R |
| Release Date | Wed 25 Dec 2013 UTC |
| Director | Martin Scorsese |
| Genres | Biography, Comedy, Crime, Drama |
| Plot | Based on the true story of Jordan Belfort, from his rise to a wealthy stock-broker living the high life to his fall involving crime, corruption and the federal government. |
| Poster |  |
| Runtime | 180 |
| Tagline | |
| Writers | Terence Winter (screenplay), Jordan Belfort (book) |
| Year | 2013 |
