El Presidente Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 Just got back not long ago from seeing this. Have to say i was a little underwhelmed after the plethora of great reviews. Personally I found it one dimensional.....long....lacking in a twist. You knew where it was heading within 15 minutes. Cut an hour shorter it would have been "Porky's for grownups". Have I missed something? I may be just getting old but greed, drug taking and sexual indulgence a 3 hour movie doesn't make without a little something else. Who loved it? Who hated it? who was indifferent? On the Rob scale it was a solid 5-6 out of 10 but well short of what I was expecting
Skyfall Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 I agree, It was an hour and a half too long, and even though the performances were stellar, it still lacked an all around cohesion and flow. I was very let down, and found it quiet aggressive with little finesse.
Bclass1 Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 I agree, It was an hour and a half too long, and even thought the performances were stellar, it still lacked an all around cohesion and flow. I was very let down, and found it quit aggressive with little finesse. I couldn't agree with you more on this Skyfall, as you seem to sum it up quite well. Even with great acting performances, the plot was bland and definitely in need of some sort of a twist to keep interest.. Just when you think the movie could end, or will end, it keeps on going but in a bad, drawn out fashion that left a bad taste in my mouth... Just got back from seeing it just a few hours ago with the girl.. Happy there was a thread to comment so quickly
Stoyan Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 I did like it a lot, especially the first hour and a half. The end could have been much better, but based on a true story, they couldn't do much about it.
polarbear Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 Scorsese' recipe for Wolf Of Wall Street: Take one part Catch Me If You Can, one part The Great Gatsby, 7 parts gratuitous nudity and 14 parts Cocane. Blend on 'high' for 3 hours and serve with generous helping of Oscar Buzz... Liked it, didnt love it
sactochris Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 It was without a doubt very ham fisted. I still enjoyed it. I would give it a 6.5 out of 10.
CBL Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 I enjoyed it, but it wasn't great. Like everybody I found it way too long and I heard that "For those for whom the Wolf of Wall Street didn't last long enough, the DVD will feature an additional hour of footage"
ErikB Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 I loved it - thought it worked on so many levels. Even think it will be regarded as a classic in 20 years time.
bogglor Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 It was a good, enjoyable film without a ton of depth. DiCaprio and Hill were terrific. It could've cut 30-45 minutes without losing much of the idea of the amount of excess these guys indulged in. I enjoyed it but it ranks lowest of all the Oscar nominated films I've seen this year.
Laxman Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 I can understand the reviews thus far. The movie should not have been more then an hour and forty minutes tops. Personally I loved the movie as that was the time I graduated college and started working down on Wall Street. Was not on the sales side of the market but had a few friends that worked for Stratton and partied out in the Hamptons for a few summers with them and no doubt were some of the craziest times of my life. Guess it was a nostalgic flick for me that bought back some great memories for me. Having grown up in a town where everyone worked in finance and in my teens there was the great junk bond days of Wall Street were people where printing money. Names like Milkin, Boesky, and Gutfriend. Firms like Salomon Brothers, Drexel Burnhan and the big 5 were booming. It is yet another lesson on the evils of greed and the lengths men will go to chase money, power and prestige. Was never a fan of all the chop shop brokerage firms. They pretty much rapped and pillaged there clients to put money in there own pockets. Matthew Mc Conaughey said it best in the movie " The name of the game, move the money from your client’s pocket into your pocket." All that being said the Quaalude scene was so funny I almost pissed myself. Also I thought the acting was spot on and years down the road will be a classic but I maybe wrong.
maverickdrinker Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 I agree, It was an hour and a half too long, and even thought the performances were stellar, it still lacked an all around cohesion and flow. I was very let down, and found it quit aggressive with little finesse. X2
ehdg Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 It was okay but not great. I thought there was way too much profanity in it for me. I didn't think they needed to curse in it as much as they did. i too agree about the Quaalude scene being very funny!! You also just had to know they where going to replay the scene the next morning showing how the car didn't get back home safely and unscathed!!
ZinZan Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 I enjoyed it.... yeah it was long and draggy but the drug scenes were cool for me. It was funny, sonething I can relate to.
Stanislaw Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 Sounds to me like smoking an NC actually..... There are too many opinions in my business that are influenced by two things: favors and fear of being wrong.... All the hype about this film and so many other 'meh' movies are based on that....
dangolf18 Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 It's hard to dislike Scorcese. I'd give it a 8.5/10. Kind of mixed feelings after seeing it. So much drugs and sex I was conflicted to like it, but that's actually what his life looked like (read Belfort's book).
Isotonic Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 I really enjoyed the movie as I viewed it purely as entertainment. I found it to be a rediculous and hedonistic rollercoaster of bullshit and I didnt feel like it even went the 3 hours. But then you remember this guy fleeced thousands of people over a period and walked away virtually scot free. Afterwards I actually started to feel a little uneasy when the fact that this was based on true events kept coming into mind. He hasnt even paid back the $110M penalty yet. Means nothing for the quality of the film but perhaps they could have touched more on his victims. Giving him a cameo was also wrong.
dubleuhb Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Too long IMO. The best part for me was the older ladies sitting behind us gasping every time one of the raunchy sex scenes played, I LOL at it every time. Other than that not worth the 12 bucks to see it.
Andy04 Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Read his book instead of watching the movie. As in most cases, the book is 1000 times better.
Guest rob Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 I won't be watching it again. A lost opportunity to have made something great IMO.
MattW Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 It was a good, enjoyable film without a ton of depth. DiCaprio and Hill were terrific. It could've cut 30-45 minutes without losing much of the idea of the amount of excess these guys indulged in. I enjoyed it but it ranks lowest of all the Oscar nominated films I've seen this year. I agree with Bogglor, I really enjoyed it and some of the performances were incredible, but I found it a bit too long! However, as some others have touched on, I feel they perhaps glorified what they all did a bit too much!
Colt45 Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 Not as entertaining as the equally (if not more) debauched Buccaneer of Burke Street.......
Paneotto Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 Not the masterpiece that one world have hoped for, but entertaining and clearly Scorsese was having fun.
BMWFan Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 It was a good predictable movie since we all knew the story. "Boiler Room", I think, was a better movie about the same firm.
galtline Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 Compare modern age wall Street wolf of wall Street to the classic wall Street. No **** and ass and the original is classic. Movies today suck.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now