Author Topic: The Wolf of Wall Street  (Read 21861 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Alexandro

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1731
  • Respect: +455
Re: The Wolf of Wall Street
« Reply #120 on: January 07, 2014, 09:57:53 AM »
+3

Alexandro

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1731
  • Respect: +455
Re: The Wolf of Wall Street
« Reply #121 on: January 07, 2014, 06:29:33 PM »
0
always a pleasure to listen to this man talk about cinema.
I didn't know he put 500k of his own cash when he went overbudget in the aviator. that's amazing. I wonder how many other big name directors do this and never say anything about it, like spielberg or mann or tarantino.

Just Withnail

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1596
  • Respect: +397
    • Truls Krane Meby's website
Re: The Wolf of Wall Street
« Reply #122 on: January 08, 2014, 05:18:06 AM »
+2
Great interview.

Interesting insights about how a lot of the tone of Wolf was found playing around on set.

That fade that comes in the middle of him listing all the filmmakers at around 03.00 is funny. Like he's been listing for hours. And that grin after he mentions putting up 500 000 for The Aviator is priceless.

But there's also something painful about the mood of the interview. He seems to be struggling quite a bit with finding motivation to do films these days.
My short WORLD WIDE WOVEN BODIES is now online:

Watch it here!

wilder

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3158
  • Respect: +1432
Re: The Wolf of Wall Street
« Reply #123 on: January 08, 2014, 04:56:42 PM »
0
^ going off that...

Martin Scorsese Explains Why Future of Film is Bright in Open Letter to Daughter
via IndieWire

Quote from: Martin Scorsese
Dearest Francesca,

Iím writing this letter to you about the future. Iím looking at it through the lens of my world. Through the lens of cinema, which has been at the center of that world.

For the last few years, Iíve realized that the idea of cinema that I grew up with, thatís there in the movies Iíve been showing you since you were a child, and that was thriving when I started making pictures, is coming to a close. Iím not referring to the films that have already been made. Iím referring to the ones that are to come.

I donít mean to be despairing. Iím not writing these words in a spirit of defeat. On the contrary, I think the future is bright.

We always knew that the movies were a business, and that the art of cinema was made possible because it aligned with business conditions. None of us who started in the 60s and 70s had any illusions on that front. We knew that we would have to work hard to protect what we loved. We also knew that we might have to go through some rough periods. And I suppose we realized, on some level, that we might face a time when every inconvenient or unpredictable element in the moviemaking process would be minimized, maybe even eliminated. The most unpredictable element of all? Cinema. And the people who make it.

I donít want to repeat what has been said and written by so many others before me, about all the changes in the business, and Iím heartened by the exceptions to the overall trend in moviemaking Ė Wes Anderson, Richard Linklater, David Fincher, Alexander Payne, the Coen Brothers, James Gray and Paul Thomas Anderson are all managing to get pictures made, and Paul not only got The Master made in 70mm, he even got it shown that way in a few cities. Anyone who cares about cinema should be thankful.

And Iím also moved by the artists who are continuing to get their pictures made all over the world, in France, in South Korea, in England, in Japan, in Africa. Itís getting harder all the time, but theyíre getting the films done.

But I donít think Iím being pessimistic when I say that the art of cinema and the movie business are now at a crossroads. Audio-visual entertainment and what we know as cinema Ė moving pictures conceived by individuals Ė appear to be headed in different directions. In the future, youíll probably see less and less of what we recognize as cinema on multiplex screens and more and more of it in smaller theaters, online, and, I suppose, in spaces and circumstances that I canít predict.

So why is the future so bright? Because for the very first time in the history of the art form, movies really can be made for very little money. This was unheard of when I was growing up, and extremely low budget movies have always been the exception rather than the rule. Now, itís the reverse. You can get beautiful images with affordable cameras. You can record sound. You can edit and mix and color-correct at home. This has all come to pass.

But with all the attention paid to the machinery of making movies and to the advances in technology that have led to this revolution in moviemaking, there is one important thing to remember: the tools donít make the movie, you make the movie. Itís freeing to pick up a camera and start shooting and then put it together with Final Cut Pro. Making a movie Ė the one you need to make - is something else. There are no shortcuts.

If John Cassavetes, my friend and mentor, were alive today, he would certainly be using all the equipment thatís available. But he would be saying the same things he always said Ė you have to be absolutely dedicated to the work, you have to give everything of yourself, and you have to protect the spark of connection that drove you to make the picture in the first place. You have to protect it with your life. In the past, because making movies was so expensive, we had to protect against exhaustion and compromise. In the future, youíll have to steel yourself against something else: the temptation to go with the flow, and allow the movie to drift and float away.

This isnít just a matter of cinema. There are no shortcuts to anything. Iím not saying that everything has to be difficult. Iím saying that the voice that sparks you is your voice Ė thatís the inner light, as the Quakers put it.

Thatís you. Thatís the truth.

All my love,

Dad

Mel

  • The Meeting with the Goddess
  • ***
  • Posts: 444
  • Edgy TV show-watching Russian bodybuilder cartoon.
  • Respect: +168
Re: The Wolf of Wall Street
« Reply #124 on: January 09, 2014, 04:02:00 PM »
0


Some highlights (till 16th minute): improvisations, possibility of extras for DVD, Martin laughing on set, McConaughey's chant, adjusting run time.
Simple mind - simple pleasures...

Alexandro

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1731
  • Respect: +455
Re: The Wolf of Wall Street
« Reply #125 on: January 13, 2014, 12:03:53 AM »
+1
I hope I have more time during the week to write a proper review, but I saw it friday and I can't stop thinking about it. It's a waaaay better film that comments on this thread let know. Completely unjustified dismissiveness here. As someone else pointed out, repetition of the empty rituals of excess are part of the point. Very brutal and cruel portrait of greed not as a sentence on it's characters, but on the society which produces characters like these and allows them to prevail. Which means, us. Insanely funny at times, (Di Caprio and Hill are just like a diabolical comic duo in the classic style), the filmmaker it reminded me the most is Luis BuŮuel. For all it's energy and anger, a very still film, with not a lot of camera movements and very straightforward mise en scene. The quieter scenes were the most disturbing (an early one with Mathew McConaughey is just perfect). All in all, a great ride.

Mel

  • The Meeting with the Goddess
  • ***
  • Posts: 444
  • Edgy TV show-watching Russian bodybuilder cartoon.
  • Respect: +168
Re: The Wolf of Wall Street
« Reply #126 on: January 13, 2014, 08:32:27 AM »
0
I loved it, one of my favorites for this year and one of the best comedies I have seen in some time. I'm not quite ready to write some kind of review - I would like to see it again at least before that. I'll just address some complains that I have seen flying around the web.

Repetition - this has to do more with run time, than anything else I guess. Average comedy is about 85 minutes long, where "Wolf" is 3 hours long (last 30 minutes or so turn into drama). I have huge troubles watching comedies - often half a hour is enough for me, where I had huge fun watching this film. I agree with Alexandro that showing things again and again is the point - those excesses weren't episodic, that was their life.

No judgment. This is weird thing going on - complains, that we never see victims of scams etc. Film is very strongly focused on main character, to the point where DiCaprio is in every scene or he is narrating it (there are very few exceptions). No surprise that everything is shown from his perspective.
Simple mind - simple pleasures...

ElPandaRoyal

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1715
  • Respect: +103
Re: The Wolf of Wall Street
« Reply #127 on: January 13, 2014, 05:18:26 PM »
0
Saw it a couple of days ago and am still digesting. A few points:

- It's one of the most hilarious movies I've seen recently.  I mean, at some points I was laughing out loud in that theatre as was most of the audience.

- Not only did I feel it was a bit longer than it needed to be, but I also think that if they had more time to work on it, they would have cut about 20 minutes out of the movie. Still, I would rather seat through an overlong Scorsese movie than a Peter Jackson or Chris Nolan or Lars von Trier.

- Didn't really like some of the music used in this. I know it's probably what these guys would listen to at the time, but it felt lazy and uninspired.

- Great performances all around. Leo and Hill are excellent, but everyone else is really amazing as well.

- People complaining about ow the movies doesn't judge its characters not shows the consequences of their actions, well, as I said before, whoever glorifies these guys is an idiot to begin with. If you're in love with an irresponsable-woman beater-thief-drug abusing dude, then fuck you.

- The final scene is one of the best Scorsese has ever shot.

- Margot Robbie!!!
Si

wilder

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3158
  • Respect: +1432
Re: The Wolf of Wall Street
« Reply #128 on: January 14, 2014, 04:58:38 PM »
+2

Kellen

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 299
  • Respect: +60
Re: The Wolf of Wall Street
« Reply #129 on: January 16, 2014, 04:42:29 PM »
0
Did anyone else have an "exclusive sneak peak" Jack Ryan clip play before their film?

Drenk

  • The Ultimate Boon
  • ***
  • Posts: 592
  • Respect: +375
Re: The Wolf of Wall Street
« Reply #130 on: January 16, 2014, 05:29:01 PM »
+2
By the way, PTA and Scorsese:

http://instagram.com/p/jOBJp6AIRg/
I'm so many people.

ono

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4187
  • ...
  • Respect: +161
Re: The Wolf of Wall Street
« Reply #131 on: January 16, 2014, 07:40:44 PM »
0
Haha, looks like PTA's rocking the mutton chops.

Alexandro

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1731
  • Respect: +455
Re: The Wolf of Wall Street
« Reply #132 on: January 17, 2014, 02:13:07 AM »
+6
Felt this was Scorsese's worst, but I didn't hate it. I feel apathetic toward it, really. Like ©brad said, some fun scenes, but a missed opportunity to make something much more interesting. This is key, from David Denby's New Yorker review:

Quote from: Davd Denby
As the critic Farran Smith Nehme pointed out to me, one of the filmmakersí mistakes was to take Jordan Belfortís claims at face value. In his memoir, Belfort presents himself as a very big deal on Wall Street. The movie presents him the same wayóas a thieving Wall Street revolutionaryówhereas, in fact, he was successful but relatively small time.

Telling it from that angle would have made the character so much more complex.

SPOILERS

But the film does get that across very clearly. The film goes out of it's way and spends a lot of time setting up the idea that Belfort is a minor league player in Wall Street. Several times this is mentioned, but more than that, it's established that no one in his team is particularly smart. The film takes a comedy tone to it, and it starts with the assembling of Belfort's team. They're all shown like dumb and ignorant. As Belfort says at some point: "they were not smart, but who in their right minds would trust these clowns?", or something like that. When the FBI agent talks with him for the first time, he spends a lot of time saying that he is just one of the small guys, and at other points he mentions how the big guys on Wall Street look down on him and his company.

the thing is, the film is told from his point of view, and he is an unreliable narrator. early on, there's a shot of his car, and in the middle of the shot the car changes colors because he says so. so from his point of view, he is this big shot, and even within this frame of mind, the film manages to let you in on the fact that whatever he says, you can't really believe everything. belfort's narration is sneaky. he paints any picture that suits his points. he's a pep talker that never rests. his main success is convincing himself of his own greatness. so everything he says is probably hiding a darker, painful truth. the film, actually, tellingly avoids showing his wrongdoings for the most part. this endless party must have some victims, but he is unable to show you them. there is a great small moment, when he talks about a coworker who marries a sales assistant that had a sexual encounters with everyone else in the office (he says the guy married her "despite" this), and he mentions that a couple of years later the guy in question killed himself in the shower, and there is an all too brief cut to a still of this moment: a bathtub soaked in blood. it's a rare image within this film, and it's one the narrator can't get away from too quickly. it's shown there for a second and it goes. later, when belfort has a gruesome fight with his wife and punches her in the gut, the action takes place almost in the background. scorsese has never shied away from showing violence, or domestic violence. but here it's like he, and his character, doesn't want us to see it so upfront. but when it comes to party and drugs, we have full access. looking away from wrongdoings becomes our character's way of life and the point of view of the film. the philosophy is: it's easy to do wrong if you never see the consequences. but what is scorsese aiming at with this? by the end, when he switches the tables on us, the final shot is a mirror for the audience, for us. people have complained about the lack of moral judgement within the film, but the film is extremely harsh not on belfort but on us, on everyone. on the system, the society that permits this. he very clearly says: "I was terrified of going to jail, but then I remembered I was rich, and I live in a place where you can sell anything". the cynicism, this level of it, this anger, is a new element that I don't think scorsese touched upon before. even travis bickle had good intentions. this time, there is no salvation. belfort is back from jail at the end and he has an audience eager to learn from him.

this moral ambivalence bothers people. and some have said that such an ugly view of humanity makes the film unworthy. scorsese pulls no punches here. this is why the film reminded me of buŮuel. like the characters in the exterminating angel, trapped in a house dinner absurdly unable to leave, these people seem to be trapped in a loop of debauchery and pointless satisfactions, with no end. the difference is, they don't even want to get out. but they are not alone. every character in the movie (with two notable exceptions) is presented as happily within this greed loop. the "victims" of belfort's fraud are not talked about like innocent and naive, they all want to get rich quickly. there's a scene in the first part of the picture when a female employee is offered 10, 000 dollars for shaving her head. she agrees, and the whole scene is presented as a grotesque spectacle of dehumanization. of course, the scene is a clear reference to the passion of joan arc. in that scene, in that movie, joan of arc gets her head shaven as an act of submission, and she endures it (despite the fact it amounts to a sexual violation) as a way to preserve her beliefs, her honor and her principles. the employee here, does it for the money, for breast implants. and the scene (as "fun" as it is portrayed, quickly shows it's ugly side, as we watch the hopeless face of the employee, not even realizing the full extent of her humiliation, too busy counting her money to care). like buŮuel in viridiana, los olvidados, discreet charm, phantom of liberty and many of his masterpieces, scorsese doesn't see anyone as innocent. everyone remembers how buŮuel went after the bourgeoisie, but he was equally ruthless with the poor. scorsese does something similar.

to be honest, the film strikes me as too rich and dense to comment on everything it's trying and doing (what about that great sex scene with belfort and his wife near the end? that's a great emotional sex scene, a true characters scene in which both are fucking). within scorsese's work it reminded me the most of casino. that's another film that was coldly received and criticized for being too long and repetitive. it took me several views to start appreciating it's richness in style and content. wouldn't be surprised if this one has the same effect on me. 

wilder

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3158
  • Respect: +1432
Re: The Wolf of Wall Street
« Reply #133 on: January 17, 2014, 04:51:57 AM »
+1

SPOILERS

But the film does get that across very clearly. The film goes out of it's way and spends a lot of time setting up the idea that Belfort is a minor league player in Wall Street. Several times this is mentioned, but more than that, it's established that no one in his team is particularly smart. The film takes a comedy tone to it, and it starts with the assembling of Belfort's team. They're all shown like dumb and ignorant. As Belfort says at some point: "they were not smart, but who in their right minds would trust these clowns?", or something like that. When the FBI agent talks with him for the first time, he spends a lot of time saying that he is just one of the small guys, and at other points he mentions how the big guys on Wall Street look down on him and his company.

Okay you're right, I do remember him saying that. My complaint is more about the tone the picture takes, though. The comedy angle seems the right route, but although I was laughing, it wasn't at the idea of Jordan's lack of self-awareness -- which is what comes across in that YouTube video of him speaking on the previous page. Something like Soderbergh's The Informant with more outright debauchery seems like a more appropriate comedic tone to take with this story. Not that I expect most to agree...the movie is definitely funny, though for other reasons, and it's getting a lot of love that way.

There's a disconnect in the presentation of his underlings and of Jordan himself. If we're to believe they're stupid, which he says they are, and as they're shown to be, then Jordan's salesmanship should come across as a con only those he has contempt for would buy into. I can see the argument that the film has contempt for the United States as a whole, letting our society get to this point, but that's not the issue here. Jordan's sales pitches are played so directly, so much without irony, that they're played TO US -- we're asked to buy into them. We're asked to align ourselves with his blatantly stupid employees, but putting a road marker here telling us we're stupid if we do prevents us from identifying, and prevents us from the resulting complicity that would make the movie more compelling.

this moral ambivalence bothers people. and some have said that such an ugly view of humanity makes the film unworthy. scorsese pulls no punches here. this is why the film reminded me of buŮuel. like the characters in the exterminating angel, trapped in a house dinner absurdly unable to leave, these people seem to be trapped in a loop of debauchery and pointless satisfactions, with no end. the difference is, they don't even want to get out. but they are not alone. every character in the movie (with two notable exceptions) is presented as happily within this greed loop. the "victims" of belfort's fraud are not talked about like innocent and naive, they all want to get rich quickly.

[...]

the philosophy is: it's easy to do wrong if you never see the consequences. but what is scorsese aiming at with this? by the end, when he switches the tables on us, the final shot is a mirror for the audience, for us. people have complained about the lack of moral judgement within the film, but the film is extremely harsh not on belfort but on us, on everyone. on the system, the society that permits this. he very clearly says: "I was terrified of going to jail, but then I remembered I was rich, and I live in a place where you can sell anything". the cynicism, this level of it, this anger, is a new element that I don't think scorsese touched upon before. even travis bickle had good intentions. this time, there is no salvation. belfort is back from jail at the end and he has an audience eager to learn from him.

I don't disagree with you here, all salient points. The moral ambivalence didn't bother me. It's obvious the film and filmmakers aren't condoning their character's behavior. All the rah-rah and up-in-arms nonsense about that aspect has me scratching my head (are people this dense?)

there's a scene in the first part of the picture when a female employee is offered 10, 000 dollars for shaving her head. she agrees, and the whole scene is presented as a grotesque spectacle of dehumanization. of course, the scene is a clear reference to the passion of joan arc. in that scene, in that movie, joan of arc gets her head shaven as an act of submission, and she endures it (despite the fact it amounts to a sexual violation) as a way to preserve her beliefs, her honor and her principles. the employee here, does it for the money, for breast implants. and the scene (as "fun" as it is portrayed, quickly shows it's ugly side, as we watch the hopeless face of the employee, not even realizing the full extent of her humiliation, too busy counting her money to care). like buŮuel in viridiana, los olvidados, discreet charm, phantom of liberty and many of his masterpieces, scorsese doesn't see anyone as innocent. everyone remembers how buŮuel went after the bourgeoisie, but he was equally ruthless with the poor. scorsese does something similar.

That was a great scene. And really fantastic observations on your part. I didn't notice the connection to Joan. You put this perfectly.

Now on to the bad.

There are three main things that irked me about Wolf...

-The shot structure felt lazy and excessively simple compared to Scorsese's past movies. I know he was working with Innaritu's DP this go-around so maybe that had something to do with the difference (though Scorsese ceding much control over shots to a DP seems unlikely at best), but many of the Casino type stylistic flourishes where there's something like a fast dolly into a telephone keypad as a character dials felt like a less talented filmmaker trying to "do Scorsese" and coming up short. Whereas in a past Scorsese movie midway through that kind of dolly move it might have cut into a more close-up version of the same shot as it landed on the keypad to accentuate the frantic state of mind, in this movie it was just the one shot the whole move in...it seemed watered down and simplified, basically imitative of his earlier style, because (it seemed) there wasn't as much passion for the material in the mix. He's spoken about DiCaprio having to talk him into returning to the project, and I felt that his hesitation to commit came across in the direction. Not that Boogie Nights is bad, it's great, but you can see this more simple shot structure attempting to be Casino in that movie, too. There, even though a watered down version of its template, it seems to work for the material. Here it felt like Scorsese failing at his own schtick. Coming from the man himself, it felt flaccid when I expected all guns blazing.

-The pacing is FUCKED. For the first half hour I felt like I was watching a workprint. Scorsese and Schoonmaker have spoken about trying to experiment with Jordan's drugged up headspace, the stop and start sometimes without reason, but for me it just didn't work. Schoonmaker also mentioned that they usually have 12 test screenings before they release a picture and this time only having 6, so maybe that also had something to do with it.

the thing is, the film is told from his point of view, and he is an unreliable narrator. early on, there's a shot of his car, and in the middle of the shot the car changes colors because he says so. so from his point of view, he is this big shot, and even within this frame of mind, the film manages to let you in on the fact that whatever he says, you can't really believe everything. belfort's narration is sneaky. he paints any picture that suits his points. he's a pep talker that never rests. his main success is convincing himself of his own greatness. so everything he says is probably hiding a darker, painful truth.

All those speeches where he pumps up his employees felt inadvertantly douchey when I wanted to feel seduced by his salesmanship. It was all so transparent but the transparency didn't work to underline the idea that Jordan is a conman or deluded by his own success, it seemed to underline the failing of the movie to sell me on Jordan's talent in the first place.

And this may be me not remembering but I could swear the voice over was more on the nose than you're describing.

The seduction that was occurring was all thanks to the Price Is Right exhibition of the lifestyle and objects you could have if you got filthy rich: drugs, parties, property, women, etc., making Jordan himself a replaceable character.

the film, actually, tellingly avoids showing his wrongdoings for the most part. this endless party must have some victims, but he is unable to show you them. there is a great small moment, when he talks about a coworker who marries a sales assistant that had a sexual encounters with everyone else in the office (he says the guy married her "despite" this), and he mentions that a couple of years later the guy in question killed himself in the shower, and there is an all too brief cut to a still of this moment: a bathtub soaked in blood. it's a rare image within this film, and it's one the narrator can't get away from too quickly. it's shown there for a second and it goes. later, when belfort has a gruesome fight with his wife and punches her in the gut, the action takes place almost in the background. scorsese has never shied away from showing violence, or domestic violence. but here it's like he, and his character, doesn't want us to see it so upfront. but when it comes to party and drugs, we have full access. looking away from wrongdoings becomes our character's way of life and the point of view of the film.

That actually all sounds great, the way you're pitching it. I didn't feel that way in the theater, or I totally checked out. You've brought up some interesting aspects and I'll reserve judgment until a second viewing.

within scorsese's work it reminded me the most of casino. that's another film that was coldly received and criticized for being too long and repetitive. it took me several views to start appreciating it's richness in style and content. wouldn't be surprised if this one has the same effect on me.

I love Casino to death. It's completely visceral and makes its 3 hour running time feel like a 2 minute amusement park ride. I never forgot I was watching a movie with TWoWS, and when I escaped to the bathroom somewhere near the middle it struck me that I didn't care what I was missing and didn't mind how long it took me to get back. I'd never had that experience with a Scorsese picture before, ever.

That all said, the movie was very funny and I'll definitely watch it again with an open mind. The one scene that has stuck in my memory (SPOILERS) is the bit after they're rescued from the sinking yacht and Jordan is sitting in the Italian's ship, looking between the storm outside through the porthole, and his wife and her friend dancing to Umberto Tozzi's "Gloria" inside. THAT was a Scorsese moment if I ever saw one. Now the song and that scene are forever married in my mind.

« Last Edit: March 19, 2014, 03:56:05 PM by wilder »

Alexandro

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1731
  • Respect: +455
Re: The Wolf of Wall Street
« Reply #134 on: January 17, 2014, 05:57:22 PM »
+1
SPOILERS AGAIN

I think Belfort's sales pitchs are pretty persuasive if you are the kind of person who is looking to be persuaded. They didn't sound particularly persuasive to me, but I could see how someone desperate could be convinced. I'm not sure the film is trying to persuade the audience as if the audience were that guy who gets that call at that moment. What the film tries to show is the absurdity of the whole enterprise. A guy like Belford shouldn't be so successful with a scam like that, but he is. His drones shouldn't be able to get rich doing that but they do, and people shouldn't believe them, but they do. The only reason something like this happens is because everyone is willing to play the game of greed. However, it does happen in the film that Belfort and Co. get more sophisticated when they reinvent the company to sell penny stocks to rich people. Yet the scam remains basically the same, and the reason it works is the same.

Having a first person narrator and use his point of view during the whole film doesn't mean that we should identify with him or that the audience can't see the story from the outside and still be interested. A good example on this I think it's A Clockwork Orange. That said, Belfort's own cluelessness about how everything he does is a desperate attempt to be a "big man" became more notable the second time I saw the movie: his need to clarify that his car was white as the car of the miami vice character, the way he shows off to us his "gay buttler" and all the other instances where he expresses contempt for pretty much everyone in the world who has less money than him.

Also on second viewing, the pace seemed to me much more precise. On my first viewing I found the first hour to be kind of sketchy too, but then on second viewing, it was the opposite. I think the weak spot of the film is around the 2 hour mark.

One thing I like about Casino is that Scorsese has never tried to do that again. This one seemed to me much more restrained in the visual sense. Casino is a visually exuberant ride, and I don't think that was the aim here. Both Goodfellas an Casino have romantic notions to their worlds, however reprehensible. GF is a look back to a time of kings, and Casino is a vision of a paradise lost. There's nothing like that here. It's a plain, visually boring world, in very bad taste too. I don't know about shots that much. I think we should give a few more viewings to digest that. I know there were a few nice shots here and there, but the really brilliant moments were simple quiet scenes of conversation.

About Scorsese and his passion for this, who knows. He said the same thing about Raging Bull. He said Casino was an "assignment". He surprised me a few weeks back when he said "The Departed" and "Shutter Island", of all films, were films he personally felt he HAD to do. Go figure. I don't think once he embarks on a project he doesn't puts everything into it. Doesn't seems like he has to do this.

Loved that Gloria scene too. And in general loved the comedy timing the film has. That is tremendously difficult. I don't think people realize how hard it is to make a comedy that actually makes people laugh.




 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy