MOVIE COMMENT CATCH-ALL THREAD

[Bustronaut]

Over the weekend we saw some movies

 

FROZEN:  I like that it doesn't go the cliched route for a number of story beats, nicely done. 

Having the sister be the 'true love' savior was especially nice.  It was also neat that the boys in the film didn't really have anything to do during the story

I initially liked the Mickey Mouse short in front of it, but thinking back it just seemed like a way to renew copyrights on images/recordings that have fallen into public domain.

 

SAVING MR. BANKS: The storytelling in this was all messed up.  I don't know if the felt they had to do more flashbacks to justify Colin Farrell's fee or what, but there were a number of times that flashbacks popped up for no reason.

 

RUSH: How did Ron Howard take one of the most intense rivalries in racing history and turn it into a tepid bore of a film?

Lauda is horrifically burned and comes back to race in two months, and his recovery is just glossed over in a montage?

WTF?

[Antacular]

I was interested in seeing Wolf of Wall Street, but hearing it's basically three hours talking about how great a time was had by a guy who helped fuck up the world's economy is a real turn off. I mean, I'm not asking for strong moral judgements in every movie I see, but come on.

 

I think he only swindled around $120M. Not nearly enough to ruin the global economy, just a bunch of lives.

[Jrag]

I was interested in seeing Wolf of Wall Street, but hearing it's basically three hours talking about how great a time was had by a guy who helped fuck up the world's economy is a real turn off. I mean, I'm not asking for strong moral judgements in every movie I see, but come on.

 

That's sort of the point I think.  A lesser director would have stuck some moral judgement in there, but Scorsese just throws it all in your face.  It's brilliant in a way.

 

Way too long, but Leo goes all out.  There is also some midget tossing and probably one of the best drug freak out scenes of all time.

[caley]

 

I was interested in seeing Wolf of Wall Street, but hearing it's basically three hours talking about how great a time was had by a guy who helped fuck up the world's economy is a real turn off. I mean, I'm not asking for strong moral judgements in every movie I see, but come on.

 

That's sort of the point I think.  A lesser director would have stuck some moral judgement in there, but Scorsese just throws it all in your face.  It's brilliant in a way.

 

Way too long, but Leo goes all out.  There is also some midget tossing and probably one of the best drug freak out scenes of all time.

 

It sorta seems to me, though (keeping in mind I haven't seen the film), that if anyone else had put out this film we'd be going "Hmm, seems kinda pointless to watch rich people do rich people things for three hours" but because it's Scorsese, everyone is rushing to find new creative ways to defend him.  I'm not planning on seeing it, because I already saw 'Get Him to the Greek' which met my quota for this sort of thing.

[jaedmc]

 "Hmm, seems kinda pointless to watch rich people do rich people things for three hours" 

 

I'm fascinated by this statement. With the caveat that you haven't seen the film in mind, are you saying that a movie that features rich people being rich is ultimately pointless? Why is this?

[Jrag]

 

 

I was interested in seeing Wolf of Wall Street, but hearing it's basically three hours talking about how great a time was had by a guy who helped fuck up the world's economy is a real turn off. I mean, I'm not asking for strong moral judgements in every movie I see, but come on.

 

That's sort of the point I think.  A lesser director would have stuck some moral judgement in there, but Scorsese just throws it all in your face.  It's brilliant in a way.

 

Way too long, but Leo goes all out.  There is also some midget tossing and probably one of the best drug freak out scenes of all time.

 

It sorta seems to me, though (keeping in mind I haven't seen the film), that if anyone else had put out this film we'd be going "Hmm, seems kinda pointless to watch rich people do rich people things for three hours" but because it's Scorsese, everyone is rushing to find new creative ways to defend him.  I'm not planning on seeing it, because I already saw 'Get Him to the Greek' which met my quota for this sort of thing.

 

 

What Jae said, but I also think you should check it out instead of blindly comparing it to a Russell Brand Comedy. 

 

I'd have a hard time finding a director who needed to be defended less, but I really don't get what that is supposed to mean either.  If anything don't the big time directors have a harder time because everyone is always comparing films to previous works?

[Fat Spanish Waiter]

An amazing movie. Leo dominates as per, but even Little Jonah Hill gets his licks in

[Fat Spanish Waiter]

Caley you are my dude, go see it.

[Craig H]

I saw Pacific Rim and thought it was really cool.

[Reed]

 

I was interested in seeing Wolf of Wall Street, but hearing it's basically three hours talking about how great a time was had by a guy who helped fuck up the world's economy is a real turn off. I mean, I'm not asking for strong moral judgements in every movie I see, but come on.

 

That's sort of the point I think.  A lesser director would have stuck some moral judgement in there, but Scorsese just throws it all in your face.  It's brilliant in a way.

 

Way too long, but Leo goes all out.  There is also some midget tossing and probably one of the best drug freak out scenes of all time.

 

 

If you make a movie about truly despicable men who wreck people's lives, I think there has to be an acknowledgment that they are, you know, despicable men who wreck people's lives.  

 

Transfer this "no judgement" mentality to a film about any other group: Nazis, serial killers, KKK members etc. Doesn't work does it? And I'm not these bankers are as bad as any of those groups, but they are awful, sociopathic people who've done nothing but great damage to the world.

 

I'm also not really happy with the idea of anything that will make a scumbag like Jordan Belfort any money (he got $1 million for the movie and recieves some of the royalties.)

[Fat Spanish Waiter]

He doesn't have a great life, and when he crashes, he crashes hard. It's more like Catch Me If You Can, but without the nice ending.

[Craig H]

I saw Pacific Rim and thought it was really cool.

 

I wanted to expand on this a bit. This movie was really good. There's a couple times that I felt like pumping my fist and saying "fuck yeah!" It was a really well put together movie. Everyone did an awesome job, especially Charlie Day. The action sequences were especially good. I wish I bought the movie instead of renting it. I also have no idea how they do a sequel.

[Jrag]

Scorsese doesn't try to hide the despicable aspects of these characters if that's what you are worried about. He just isn't afraid to show them, either.

He is also smart enough not to attach some sort of "it wasn't worth it" moral to the film, because it's always worth it for people with that type of money. They are above the law and showing that to be the case doesn't condone anything.

[Reed]

IMO, seems the type of movie that a new generation of morally inept bankers will look to for inspiration. That's probably all it will accomplish.

 

One thing I did like about Goodfellas is that it did tear down a lot of The Godfather's rose-tinted ideas about gangsters and showed them in the correct light. There was also a morality to it, even if it didn't hit you over the head with it: everyone involved ended up in jail, dead or, like, Henry, stuck being some nobody. There was a twisted sense of justice about the whole thing.

[Fat Spanish Waiter]

IMO, seems the type of movie that a new generation of morally inept bankers will look to for inspiration. That's probably all it will accomplish.

One thing I did like about Goodfellas is that it did tear down a lot of The Godfather's rose-tinted ideas about gangsters and showed them in the correct light. There was also a morality to it, even if it didn't hit you over the head with it: everyone involved ended up in jail, dead or, like, Henry, stuck being some nobody. There was a twisted sense of justice about the whole thing.

See it, or stop talking about a movie you haven't seen.

[Brian Fowler]

Now that I crossed American Hustle off the list, Wolf jumps to the top of my too-see list.

 

But the pretty girl chose Hustle, so that's what I saw tonight.

[caley]

 

 "Hmm, seems kinda pointless to watch rich people do rich people things for three hours" 

 

I'm fascinated by this statement. With the caveat that you haven't seen the film in mind, are you saying that a movie that features rich people being rich is ultimately pointless? Why is this?

 

What great lesson, entertainment or further understanding would I learn from watching bad rich people be rich?!  I can watch poor people struggle all day: striving for something better, either making it and losing it, or making it and being happy, or never getting anywhere but struggling.  But, there is no appeal, to me, in watching bad people of privilege exploit said privilege and have a good time.  I'll watch bad rich people get their comeuppance, bad rich people use their riches to help others, bad rich people walk away from money etc. etc.  But, why would I want to watch bad rich people enjoy their wealth?  It would be like watching 'A Christmas Carol' where Scrooge doesn't learn his lesson, fires Bob Cratchit, and spends all his money on a Christmas dinner only to shit it out on the Cratchits doorstep.  It's the same reason I have no interest in watching the Kardashians: terrible rich people doing rich things and never learning any sort of lessons.  If that's not what 'Wolf' is, fine, but that's how it's coming across to me and I have no interest in that.

 

 

 

 

I was interested in seeing Wolf of Wall Street, but hearing it's basically three hours talking about how great a time was had by a guy who helped fuck up the world's economy is a real turn off. I mean, I'm not asking for strong moral judgements in every movie I see, but come on.

 

That's sort of the point I think.  A lesser director would have stuck some moral judgement in there, but Scorsese just throws it all in your face.  It's brilliant in a way.

 

Way too long, but Leo goes all out.  There is also some midget tossing and probably one of the best drug freak out scenes of all time.

 

It sorta seems to me, though (keeping in mind I haven't seen the film), that if anyone else had put out this film we'd be going "Hmm, seems kinda pointless to watch rich people do rich people things for three hours" but because it's Scorsese, everyone is rushing to find new creative ways to defend him.  I'm not planning on seeing it, because I already saw 'Get Him to the Greek' which met my quota for this sort of thing.

 

 

What Jae said, but I also think you should check it out instead of blindly comparing it to a Russell Brand Comedy. 

 

I'd have a hard time finding a director who needed to be defended less, but I really don't get what that is supposed to mean either.  If anything don't the big time directors have a harder time because everyone is always comparing films to previous works?

 

Nah, not really.  Once a director has a certain amount of cache, they can do no wrong.  Martin Scorsese could direct the next Justin Bieber concert film and people would go "He brings a really interesting perspective to performance of 'Baby'!"  I think you have a lot more people going "It's not fair to compare it to 'Goodfellas'." than you do people going "This is not Goodfellas".  Another great example of this is Tarantino.  Not so much around these parts, but in some places if you have the temerity to say "Man, 'Death Proof' was not that good",  you get some feverish angry responses.

 

Caley you are my dude, go see it.

This is the best argument I've seen in the movie's favour but...no, still can't do it.

[caley]

By the by, has anyone here seen 'Upstream Color'?  I just watched it and it kinda floored the shit out of me and now I'm wanting to discuss it.  I'm entirely sure I don't understand it entirely, don't know what it symbolized if anything, but I'm not positive it's not my film of the year either.  Anyone?  

[Fat Spanish Waiter]

 

This is the best argument I've seen in the movie's favour but...no, still can't do it.

 

Dude you know how a movie can look one way and be something different? Like how Drive was this kickass awesome movie about  badass driver... and then it was some awful bullshit about an autistic guy and his stalking of a single mother? Imagine this looked like it was something that you don't like but then was something you probably will.

[Reed]

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2013/12/wolf_of_wall_street_prousalis.php

 

 

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, dear Kings of Hollywood, but you have been conned.

 

Let me introduce myself. My name is Christina McDowell, formerly Christina Prousalis. I am the daughter of Tom Prousalis, a man the Washington Post described as "just some guy on trial for penny-stock fraud." (I had to change my name after my father stole my identity and then threatened to steal it again, but I'll get to that part later.) I was 18 and a freshman in college when my father and his attorneys forced me to attend his trial at New York City's federal courthouse so that he "looked good" for the jury -- the consummate family man.

And you, Jordan Belfort, Wall Street's self-described Wolf: You remember my father, right? You were chosen to be the government's star witness in testifying against him. You had pleaded guilty to money laundering and securities fraud (it was the least you could do) and become a government witness in two dozen cases involving your former business associate, but my father's attorneys blocked your testimony because had you testified it would have revealed more than a half-dozen other corrupt stock offerings too. And, well, that would have been a disaster. It would have just been too many liars, and too many schemes for the jurors, attorneys or the judge to follow.

But the records shows you and my father were in cahoots together with MVSI Inc. of Vienna, e-Net Inc. of Germantown, Md., Octagon Corp. of Arlington, Va., and Czech Industries Inc. of Washington, D.C., and so on -- a list of seemingly innocuous, legitimate companies that stretches on. I'll spare you. Nobody cares. None of these companies actually existed, yet all of them were taken public by the one and only Wolf of Wall Street and his firm Stratton Oakmont Inc in order to defraud unwitting investors and enrich yourselves.

 

As an 18-year-old, I had no idea what was going on. But then again, did anyone? Certainly your investors didn't -- and they were left holding the bag when you cashed out your holdings and got rich off their money.

 

So Marty and Leo, while you glide through press junkets and look forward to awards season, let me tell you the truth -- what happened to my mother, my two sisters and me. The day my father had to surrender to prison, I drove him. My mother had locked herself in the bathroom crying and throwing up, becoming nothing short of a more beautiful version of Cate Blanchett in Blue Jasmine. Ironically enough, Marty, she looks like a cross between Sharon Stone and Michelle Pfeiffer. Totally your leading ingénue type. Anyhow, after my father successfully laundered money in my name, hiding what was left of our assets from the government in a Wells Fargo bank account, I arrived home to discover multiple phone calls from creditors and attorneys threatening to sue me. He'd left me in nearly $100,000 worth of debt. He left and never told me.

After all of that liquidated money was gone from the Wells Fargo bank account, things got pretty bad. My younger sister ran away at 17. My older sister struggled to finish school in Texas. I couch-surfed for two years, sometimes dressing out of my car and stealing pieces of salami out of my boyfriends' refrigerators in the middle of the night, because I was so hungry and so ashamed that I couldn't feed myself. Tips at the restaurant weren't cutting it. It's a pretty confusing experience to go from flying private with Dad to an evening where he's begging you for a piece of your paycheck so he can buy food for dinner.

But, here's the real kicker --

I believed him.

I believed everything my father told me. I believed it was the government's fault he was going to prison and leaving his little princess, I believed it was your fault, Jordan Belfort. I believed that by taking out all those credit cards in my name, my father was attempting to save me. I believed him when he got out, and when he told me everything would be OK. I believed him until he tried to do the same thing all over again -- until I was at risk of being arrested myself (and I'm saving that story for the memoir).

So here's the deal. You people are dangerous. Your film is a reckless attempt at continuing to pretend that these sorts of schemes are entertaining, even as the country is reeling from yet another round of Wall Street scandals. We want to get lost in what? These phony financiers' fun sexcapades and coke binges? Come on, we know the truth. This kind of behavior brought America to its knees.

And yet you're glorifying it -- you who call yourselves liberals. You were honored for career excellence and for your cultural influence by the Kennedy Center, Marty. You drive a Honda hybrid, Leo. Did you think about the cultural message you'd be sending when you decided to make this film? You have successfully aligned yourself with an accomplished criminal, a guy who still hasn't made full restitution to his victims, exacerbating our national obsession with wealth and status and glorifying greed and psychopathic behavior. And don't even get me started on the incomprehensible way in which your film degrades women, the misogynistic, ass-backwards message you endorse to younger generations of men.

But hey, listen boys, I get it. I was conned, too. By. My. Own. Dad! I drove a white Range Rover in high school, snorted half of Colombia, and got any guy I ever wanted because my father would take them flying in his King Air.

And then I unraveled the truth. The truth about my father and his behavior: that behind all of it was really just insidious soul-sucking shame masked by addiction, which we love to call ambition, which is really just greed. Greed and the desire for fame (exactly what you've successfully given self-appointed motivational speaker/financial guru Jordan Belfort, whose business opportunities will surely multiply thanks to this film).

For me, it's become goddamn unbearable.

But I refuse to give up.

Belfort's victims, my father's victims, don't have a chance at keeping up with the Joneses. They're left destitute, having lost their life savings at the age of 80. They can't pay their medical bills or help send their children off to college because of characters like the ones glorified in Terry Winters' screenplay.

Let me ask you guys something. What makes you think this man deserves to be the protagonist in this story? Do you think his victims are going to want to watch it? Did we forget about the damage that accompanied all those rollicking good times? Or are we sweeping it under the carpet for the sale of a movie ticket? And not just on any day, but on Christmas morning??

So here's what I'm going to do first. I'm going to hand you my shame. Right now, in this very moment. The shame that I've been carrying for far too long as a result of being collateral damage. Because each of you should feel ashamed. And then I'm going to go pre-order my tickets to August: Osage County in support of Julia and Meryl -- because, at least, as screwed up as that family is, they talk about the truth.

I urge each and every human being in America NOT to support this film, because if you do, you're simply continuing to feed the Wolves of Wall Street.

Yours truly,

Christina McDowell

PS. Quick update on Dad: He is now doing business with the Albanian government and, rumor has it, is married to a 30-year-old Albanian translator -- they always, always land on their feet.

 

 

OK, this girl's story sounds more interesting than the film. Maybe this should have been the tale turned into a movie.

[Fat Spanish Waiter]

Hahahaha you realise she hasn't seen it, right?

[Reed]

Hahahaha you realise she hasn't seen it, right?

 

The problem with the whole "why don't you just go see it?" point is that at least some of the $$$ is going to Belfort. Can you understand her reluctance to contribute to the retirement of a guy she at least partly blames for wrecking her life?

 

I think that whole girl's story reads a bit like Blue Jasmine, only with a happy ending.

[Victator]

This is the future, there are other methods.

[Fat Spanish Waiter]

 

Hahahaha you realise she hasn't seen it, right?

 

The problem with the whole "why don't you just go see it?" point is that at least some of the $$$ is going to Belfort. Can you understand her reluctance to contribute to the retirement of a guy she at least partly blames for wrecking her life?

 

Yes. But it has nothing to do with anyone else or the film itself. There's some horrendous hand wringing sanctimony about this movie that just doesn't exist for any other of the numerous biopics about criminals in recent years. Did you boycott Pain and Gain?

[Reed]

I don't actively set out to boycott Michael Bay movies. I've been doing that naturally for years anyway.