It’s the 1980s and Jordan Belfort is a self-made millionaire New York stock guy—you know, the ones who ruined the world recently. He loves sex workers, illegal drugs, throwing money around and having zero inner life or outside interests. The perfect person to play him is someone who has lived like this, so move outta the way, fatass, cause here comes craggy, spray-tanned manchild Leonardo DiCaprio—who turns 40 this year and starts the movie at 22, lol—to dredge up his ’90s-era Pussy Posse heyday for all to see. Though Scorsese, 71, isn’t sympathetic to Belfort, indisputably a tool, he definitely thinks he’s
really fucking awesome—why else would this thing be three hours long? If there was some sort of social commentary happening—we knew Wall Street was bad for the world before this movie—or one decent female character, or anything beyond “Wouldja look at this?!,” The Wolf of Wall Street may be worth recommending. But this is some hollow sludge, from Jonah Hill’s bleached teeth straight to his fake dick (thanks for that, btw). Scorsese and DiCaprio should just take a long vacation together and leave the rest of us out of it.
This article appears in Dec 26, 2013 – Jan 1, 2014.
This is the second review I have read by a women at the coast, complaining of no real female roles in the movie. Its probably the same girl.
There were plenty of female roles! You just werent inspired by them, maybe you were, haha I am not sure.
The movie is filth, but its a fun filthy ride of 3 hours, might have been excessivly long but I liked it. One of the best movies of the year. Dicaprio nails it! and the supporting cast is huge.
So Tara really found none of this film riotously funny? Not a peep about the great comic work on display by most of the cast, which is one of the best things about the movie. Nothing about the great performance Margot Robbie logs, either, although I’m unclear as to whether Tara’s complaining about absent female characters or absent performances by females. No comment on how unbelievably in-control the editing and pacing of the film are; this movie SWINGS, particularly for a three-hour (hugely entertaining) picture. No consideration of how awkward and leaden broad “social commentary” would be alongside what is effectively a screwball comedy (and there’s plenty of commentary summarized in the final shot, if you’re looking closely enough).
The actual “hollow sludge” seems to be dwelling on prosthetic members and spray-tans, neither of which has anything to do with the film, and wishing upon a star that this was a film it absolutely does not purport to be.
Saw it yesterday and laughed my way through most of it, definitely an entertaining movie.
People! The important thing here is that Thorne did all that in only 194 words. Really great writing.
You know when a film is almost universally praised and when you finally get round to watching it you are like ‘Really?’ When that happens I look for a dissenting voice to see who else is in the minority on this one. This review with, as Landingham points out above, great economy of expression, surfaces all that is wrong with this overblown wankfest of a film.
Clown take. Oh boo fucking hoo you didn’t care enough because you were too focused looking for women roles, the story isn’t about that! Jesus how are you a journalist. Lol.