next »

[heisenbergman]

Le passé (The Past) - Asghar Farhadi is such a master storyteller and a keen, perceptive observer of human relationships. As with his previous film, "A Separation", Farhadi is able to again bring rich and complex characters to life onscreen through and equally rich and complex narrative. There is that part towards the end where the film turns a bit into a mystery/thriller, which felt like a not-so-smooth shift in tone from the melodrama of its first 90 minutes, but it's a very minor criticism to what is otherwise a great movie.

August: Osage County - Surprisingly good given that I've heard a lot of criticism against it for supposed overacting and the love-or-hate-it performance that Meryl Streep gives. I thought that Streep did a great job and the ensemble cast is one of the best - if not the best - of 2013, if only for Roberts, Cooper, Martindale, Cumberbatch, Nicholson & Shepard. Slightly underrated film imo.

Jagten (The Hunt) - Brilliantly written and beautifully shot. I don't think I've ever felt so much anger towards what was happening on the film in a very long time. At one point, I had to stop watching because I felt like it was going to be the turning point of the film and so much idiocy/irresponsibility on the part of Lucas' community was going to ensue... and it did... and I raged. Great nuanced performance by Mads Mikkelsen to complement the psychological themes that surrounded the film.

[cactus]

if the movie is trying to get some kind of point across it's on the movie to be clear about it. if half its audience isn't getting the right message or the opposite of intended message then it means it failed!!

idk anything about the movie and movies r dum i'm just saying this in general

I saw Wolf of Wallstreet last week, and I can't believe anyone who saw it was left thinking that the main character was anything but an asshole (this is not directed at you eva, since you haven't seen it).

*spoilers*

The main character:
-Is unfaithful all the time
-Treats women like garbage/trophies whatever
-Does drugs
-Molests flight attendants
-Rips people off
-Tries to bribe the police
-Contemplates hiring assassins to kill the police
-Physically abuses his wife
-Drives while high on drugs
-Crashes his car with his young daughter inside
-Is generally demeaning and degrading towards everyone

And this is just from the top of my head. If all of these things together are too subtle for the audience to figure out that he is an asshole, I would not blame the director of the film.

Instead I find it rather interesting that half of the people who saw the film basically lets all of this awful behavior slide simply because DiCaprio is charismatic and handsome (and as such can't possibly be a bad guy).

Anyway. I thought the film was pretty good, although not great. It had its moments.

[Netsu]

Instead I find it rather interesting that half of the people who saw the film basically lets all of this awful behavior slide simply because DiCaprio is charismatic and handsome (and as such can't possibly be a bad guy).

I think it's more due to him being both the main character and the narrator of the movie. The narrative never focuses for long on the people he screwed over, instead it focuses on how much fun he is having and how everyone at the office loves him. And he kinda is the best boss ever if you think about it.

I imagine that if they made a similar movie about Hitler, assuming nobody knew who Hitler was and what he actually done, then the audience would also root for the main guy - he was great at giving speeches too I heard.

[Christian Knudsen]

I imagine that if they made a similar movie about Hitler, assuming nobody knew who Hitler was and what he actually done, then the audience would also root for the main guy - he was great at giving speeches too I heard.

But the movie does show and tell what Belfort did, so that's not really an apt comparison. The stuff cactus mentioned isn't something that the movie just glosses over, it's long drawn out scenes. It's the entire core of the story. Belfort is a smooth-talking devil. But he's still a devil and an asshole. And the movie in no way tries to hide that.

I think Catch Me If You Can is an interesting comparison in this case, because the main character (who's incidentally also play by DeCaprio) is also a con-man. But, as far as I remember, he doesn't screw over individuals, he goes after large corporations like PanAm. I don't remember him being a drug addict either or abuse and cheating on his wife. So I'd understand audience members "liking" that character. But Belfort is such a clear-cut asshole that it's mind-boggling to me that anybody'd perceive him as anything but. Or think the movie tries to portray him as anything but.

[Schoq]

Maybe a large part of the audience wishes they were also so powerful that they could do all those things and get away with it?
Isn't that the american dream?

[Christian Knudsen]

Well, yes. That's the point of the movie. That society somewhat idolizes that behavior because we're pretty much all drawn to power, money and excess. That's why Belfort was able to make his fortune. By selling the dream of fast and easy money to ordinary people.

[feminazi]

then peopl watching it know its bad but also want to do it so they basicaly com out thinking they shud be bad

tel me when they stop with da anti heroz

[heisenbergman]

If people come out of watching WOWS wanting to become like Jordan Belfort after the film repeatedly shows the many ways that Belfort and his cohorts are assholes in a multitude of excessive ways... then I think that says more about those people and our society than it does about the film.

[Blambo]

If people come out of watching WOWS wanting to become like Jordan Belfort after the film repeatedly shows the many ways that Belfort and his cohorts are assholes in a multitude of excessive ways... then I think that says more about those people and our society than it does about the film.

Well yeah

Then by extension the movie's intended purpose did not properly address the audience

[heisenbergman]

...and what is the movie's "intended purpose" considering I've already explained what Scorsese said about their (he and Terrence Winter) intentions in making the film?

[Blambo]

It just shows the story in a straightforward narrative and is shot in a style that mirrors the excessive, debaucherous and nihilistic lifestyle of Belfort and his cohorts.

Regardless of any potential for social commentary on the treatment of the rich in America, he's clearly failed in showing the decadent nature of Belfort's life if the majority of the audience values these acts as ultimately positive

[heisenbergman]

where does it say that "majority of the audience values these acts as ultimately positive"?

[Blambo]

I think it's pretty safe to say that american culture has made it so that many if not most people have a value system that aligns with belfort's

also it's not like with violence, where definitely most people believe killing to be wrong. so something like Goodfellas is not as problematic as WoWS even though the act casually depicted in the former is way worse than that in the latter

It's like if Birth of a Nation was a tacit criticism of racism in america. Its intended audience clearly would not have viewed it as that, so it's failed in that respect

Also I'm not saying this movie is at all technically bad or anything, in fact it operates pretty well as a comedy in a vacuum. But it's not as socially aware and smart as many reviews state it to be

[heisenbergman]

If anything, I think the "problem" with WOWS is that it has the gall to recognize our society's complicity with this behavior and all the ways we help in propitiating these monsters by giving them a pass or maybe even worshiping them. It's not that the film doesn't punish belfort... it's that we don't, and Scorsese is just showering us with the cosmic ridiculousness of all this, which is why I say that if one comes out of the theater loving Belfort, then that says more about the viewer than the film. We like our movies to punish bad guys because we don't do it in real life. We want the indulgence. That's the thing about movies and society: People like to be indulged, not punished.

[Blambo]

Wait so is it a straightforward showcase of Belfort's insane lifestyle or a tacit criticism of American society? It's definitely misjudged it's audience if it were the former and completely hamfisted and tonally misguided if it's the latter. And if it's both, well then it's just doubly ineffective

[Christian Knudsen]

Wait so is it a straightforward showcase of Belfort's insane lifestyle or a tacit criticism of American society? It's definitely misjudged it's audience if it were the former and completely hamfisted and tonally misguided if it's the latter. And if it's both, well then it's just doubly ineffective

Why? Because some audience members didn't get it? And it's hamfisted, but at the same time apparently so unclear that a lot of audience members didn't get it? (Also, can something be tacit and hamfisted at the same time?)

[Blambo]

o lol what I typed was a mess

My point is that whether it's a criticism of Jordon Belfort or of society, a big portion of the audience doesn't have a value system that aligns with the intended effect.

[Netsu]

But the movie does show and tell what Belfort did, so that's not really an apt comparison. The stuff cactus mentioned isn't something that the movie just glosses over, it's long drawn out scenes. It's the entire core of the story. Belfort is a smooth-talking devil. But he's still a devil and an asshole. And the movie in no way tries to hide that.

As far as I remember the movie not once shows the results of people trusting their lives savings to Belfort, those are the real victims.
He didn't kill anyone when driving high, it was presented as a funny story. His family? They will probably somehow keep enough money to never work again.
Only his first wife was somehow concerned with the people he destroys, but that was just one scene.

On the other hand the movie shows his coworker crying and thanking him for turning her life around, it shows how great a guy he is when he saves the shoe guy speech and it shows him saving the life of his choking friend. Later he also warns him that he is collaborating, and guess what, his friend betrays him, solidifying his image as the 'good' guy.

I think the movie goes to great lenghts to make us love Belfort and it doesn't surprise me that this is how many people feel about him after watching it.

[Christian Knudsen]

After watching the movie, were you unaware that Belfort had scammed hundreds of people for millions of dollars? Were you unaware that he was a drug-addict that was abusive to his wife and cheated on her? If we're to continue with your Hitler analogy (Goodwin's Rule, hurrah!), it would be like showing Hitler being admired by his closest allies (who, naturally, shared his political beliefs), but at the same time seeing him giving orders that resulted in the murder of 11 million people, then still claiming that the movie went to great lengths to make us love Hitler.

No, Belfort didn't kill anyone when driving high. Should the movie have warped the truth and have him kill someone even though he didn't in real life? Is drunk driving or driving while so high on drugs that you literally can't walk only wrong if you kill someone in the process? Did you really need the movie to hit you over the head like this?

And his family is fine because they'll have money? I'm sure having a scam-artist and drug-addict of a father who still spent 1½ years (I think) in jail isn't going to affect his daughter in any way whatsoever growing up... But, hey, they have money, so they'll be fine. Because that's what it's all about, having money, right?

I think the movie goes to great lenghts to make us love Belfort and it doesn't surprise me that this is how many people feel about him after watching it.

I couldn't disagree more with this statement. The movie does not go to great lengths to make us love Belfort. It shows us what a smooth-talking devil he is. It shows us why his colleagues and friends loved him (he made them money -- kinda superficial love, don't you think?). Does it rely on the audience to look beyond his speeches and his co-workers and friends' opinion of him? Sure. Does the movie have funny scenes were you're laughing at (again, as I mentioned before, I certainly don't hope you're laughing with) Belfort and his friends? Definitely. It's a black comedy. Does this mean that the movie is poorly made or somehow misses its mark? I don't think so. And all I'm really getting from the complaints is that the movie is perhaps a bit too nuanced instead of being the typical Hollywood mainstream movie where the bad guy gets taken down by the good cop. Good guy wins, bad guy loses. Leave the theater satisfied.

At the same time, I'm also not that surprised that some people did walk out of the theater admiring Belfort or wanting to be like him. Again, for the hundredth time, that was one of the points of the movie, and pretty much spelled out in that final scene. A bunch of people also completely missed the point of Fight Club. And I'm sure there are people that'll leave a theater after watching a Jackass movie and bring a hammer to their balls because it was fun watching somebody else do it on screen.

Did Martin Scorsese have too high hopes for the average movie goer's willingness to think beyond the absolute surface level of his movie? Possibly. But maybe he didn't make this for the average movie goer. It's certainly not a mainstream movie. He had completely free hands when making it. The studio didn't interfere. And I personally loved every last minute of it, so I felt he was extremely successful in what he set out to do and wouldn't want anything changed or spelled out more clearly.

I realize that it just didn't click with a lot of people, but it seems to me that instead of just going, eh, I didn't like it for whatever reason, people are going out of their way to find faults within the movie itself and what it's trying to do, and the complaints ring quite hollow. I recently watched American Hustle and was pretty disappointed with it. I don't understand why it's getting the rave reviews it's getting. But I can't really find much fault in the movie itself. It just didn't click with me. Maybe because I watched it after watching Wolf of Wall Street. Or maybe because I had a poor theater experience with an extremely annoying couple next to me. Or maybe it's because if you want to make something that speaks in the same way to everybody, you end up with boring, middle-of-the-road dreck. I'm just glad somebody like Ron Howard didn't direct Wolf of Wall Street.

Holy fuck, I think I've spent too many words discussing this movie now. Sorry for the wall of text.

[Netsu]

After watching the movie, were you unaware that Belfort had scammed hundreds of people for millions of dollars? Were you unaware that he was a drug-addict that was abusive to his wife and cheated on her?

I was fully aware, but I feel the movie was pulling people's attention away from those things. I think the universal knee-jerk reaction to the actual scamming scenes is admiring Belforts skills and laughing at the people he's scamming. The movie doesn't give you time to contemplate upon the fate of those scammed people, it's all fun and games.

If we're to continue with your Hitler analogy (Goodwin's Rule, hurrah!), it would be like showing Hitler being admired by his closest allies (who, naturally, shared his political beliefs), but at the same time seeing him giving orders that resulted in the murder of 11 million people, then still claiming that the movie went to great lengths to make us love Hitler.

Yeah this analogy was way too far-fetched, sorry. And I think this is due to the fact that murder is never acceptable in our sosciety, while there is a big culture around 'good thieves' and self-made people who play the system. I think even more so in my country, which suffered totalitarian rule for quite some time.

No, Belfort didn't kill anyone when driving high. Should the movie have warped the truth and have him kill someone even though he didn't in real life? Is drunk driving or driving while so high on drugs that you literally can't walk only wrong if you kill someone in the process? Did you really need the movie to hit you over the head like this?

Again, it's more about the image it creates than the actual things he's done. The high driving scene was supposed to be funny, I think it actually was, and as such I doubt many people are going 'oh god, how could he' upon seeing it. I fully expect people to root for him in this scene, so he could reach his destination intact and on time, I know I did.

And his family is fine because they'll have money? I'm sure having a scam-artist and drug-addict of a father who still spent 1½ years (I think) in jail isn't going to affect his daughter in any way whatsoever growing up... But, hey, they have money, so they'll be fine. Because that's what it's all about, having money, right?

For the characters in the movie, I think so, yeah.

I couldn't disagree more with this statement. The movie does not go to great lengths to make us love Belfort. It shows us what a smooth-talking devil he is. It shows us why his colleagues and friends loved him (he made them money -- kinda superficial love, don't you think?). Does it rely on the audience to look beyond his speeches and his co-workers and friends' opinion of him? Sure. Does the movie have funny scenes were you're laughing at (again, as I mentioned before, I certainly don't hope you're laughing with) Belfort and his friends? Definitely. It's a black comedy. Does this mean that the movie is poorly made or somehow misses its mark? I don't think so. And all I'm really getting from the complaints is that the movie is perhaps a bit too nuanced instead of being the typical Hollywood mainstream movie where the bad guy gets taken down by the good cop. Good guy wins, bad guy loses. Leave the theater satisfied.

I definitely don't think the movie is poor or misses its mark. I think it is highly nuanced and forces the viewers to think for themselves instead of just absorbing the obvious opinions they are fed. But if one was to just absorb mindlessly what the narration shows then I think he would hold Belfort in admiration for his genius, charisma and humour, because this is what the narration strongly focuses on. This and his indulgent lifestyle which many people envy.

In real life I hate people like Belfort with all my guts but I also rarely pity people who let such individuals scam them. And I definitely laughed WITH Belfort many times throughout the movie, but I am probably a terrible person a little.

PS: The Wolf of Textwall