The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

Fresh faced Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) is excited to start his first job on Wall Street.  He quickly learns how devastating the stock market can swing when Black Monday hits and finds himself out of a job.  Struggling to find a new gig, he comes across a small operation where he learns you can make a lot more money selling worthless penny stocks to unsuspecting investors.  He founds his firm, Stratton Oakmont, with Donnie Azoff (Jonah Hill) and a small group of friends, and quickly grows it into a hugely successful company making millions of dollars.

Stratton Oakmont reminded me of the chop shop firm from Boiler Room, and it turns out both films were inspired by Jordan Belfort, who I didn't realize was a real person until I learned that The Wolf of Wall Street was based off his memoirs.  My only criticism of the story, albeit a small one, is that much of what you see here isn't exactly breaking any new ground.  Besides Boiler Room, plenty of other films have generally portrayed stockbrokers as immoral, prostitute-loving cokeheads, or put their greed on display.  

The difference with The Wolf of Wall Street is all this hedonism is turned up to the max.  These guys spend money and party like nobody you've ever seen.  When Belfort details his drug habits, you wonder how he hasn't dropped dead already.  You know how when you go to a party and ask the host if you need to bring a six pack or bag of chips?  Jordan Belfort would demand you bring a kilo of cocaine, a busload of hookers, or a bowl of Quaaludes.  These are the party favors at a Stratton Oakmont party.  The parties DiCaprio's Gatsby threw don't hold a candle to the excess of a DiCaprio/Belfort party.

These guys were completely out of control, but that was the point Martin Scorsese was trying to make.  It's an unapologetic spotlight on their behavior.  It may shock or disgust you, and none of them appear to any conscience at all.  They don't care that they're ripping people off.  Contrast that with Boiler Room, where Giovanni Ribisi faces a moral dilemma once he realizes what he's doing is wrong, and even tries to make amends.  I'm sorry I keep bringing up Boiler Room, but seriously though, check it out if you haven't yet.

There's no ambiguity here.  It's clear from the opening moments that Belfort and rest of his crew aren't meant to be sympathetic.  They are constantly driven to amass more wealth and upgrade anything they can in their lives, even their wives.  Hell, the early part of this film could have been called "How I Divorced Your Mother", as Belfort's first wife is played by HIMYM's Cristin Milioti.  Although I can't say I blame Belfort when you meet his new wife, Naomi (Margot Robbie).  This is first time I've seen Margot Robbie in anything, but keep an eye out for her in the future.  If anything, she's another name I'm adding to the long list of Australian actresses I want to marry.

There's no redemption for anyone during the film, and I wonder what the real Jordan Belfort has learned from all of this.  The fact that he wrote these stories and didn't paint himself in the best light would make me think he at least feels a little bad about he did.  Despite the deplorable behavior and decadence, The Wolf is still amusing.  Part of you might even wish you could attend one of these parties just for the experience and stories.  It understandable to want a little taste of what they have.  It's also very funny.  There's one Quaalude fueled sequence that's as zany as anything I've seen in a recent comedy.  The dialog in Terence Winter's script is very sharp.  You'll be surprised when you realize that The Wolf of Wall Street is three hours long, as it goes by like a drunken blur.

The performances, of course, are outstanding.  People have wondered for years when Leonardo DiCaprio would get nominated for an Oscar, and I think this is finally his year.  He's had deeper or more dramatic roles, but this is easily his most lively and amusing.  The Wolf is definitely my favorite performance of his.  He'll likely be competing with his co-star, Matthew McConaughey, whose fans may be disappointed to hear he's not in the movie that much.  McConaughey's character establishes the tone for the film though, as well as sets Belfort up with the rules that he eventually adopts as his lifestyle.

I thought Jonah Hill was extremely funny and I would argue this is a better performance than the one he got nominated for in Moneyball.  I wouldn't be surprised to see another supporting nomination for him.  Rob Reiner was a total scene stealer as Belfort's Dad, and he was a welcome sight on the big screen again.  Besides Margot Robbie, Kyle Chandler, Jon Bernthal, and Jean Dujardin all stand out as part of the supporting cast.  I got a kick out of some of the characters that made up the rest of Belfort's team, and even Jon Favreau has a small role.  There isn't a weak performance in the bunch.

A word of warning, while I've never really taken issue with nudity in a film, The Wolf of Wall Street has more nudity in it than any film I can remember outside of an actual porn.  This also has to be up there with the most amount of f-bombs dropped, as well.  I have to imagine this flirted with an NC-17 rating, and if so, I really want to see the Director's Cut.

The Wolf of Wall Street may not be Martin Scorsese's best film, but it's definitely one of his most humorous and entertaining.  The energy and craziness is intoxicating.  Like many of Scorsese's films, it's one you'll watch and enjoy again and again, but don't expect to ever catch this while channel surfing on some rainy afternoon.

5 (out of 5) Death Stars

The Great Gatsby (2013)

More like the "So-So" Gatsby...

Baz Luhrmann's adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel The Great Gatsby isn't a terrible movie, but I found myself going through various stages of irritation and interest throughout it.  Fifteen minutes in, I was so nauseated by the visuals and music that I considered walking out.  Gatsby hadn't even shown up on screen yet.  Once he did though, I found myself taken in by his charm and story.  However, as it continued on, I started to care less and less about the characters and what was going on with them.

Let's start with those visuals.  I think part of my experience was compounded by the fact that I saw this in RPX 3D.  I heard this was actually shot in 3D, and if it was, it's one of the worst examples of unnecessary 3D I've seen.  It didn't add anything to the film, and just made the visuals that much more distracting.  Several scenes were simultaneously in and out of focus and weird digital camera tricks were used that won't help anyone that already has motion issues watching movies in 3D.  In some ways the look of the 3D reminded me of the effect that The Hobbit has with it's 48 FPS motion.  Much of the film felt and looked fake to me, whether it was wide shots of houses or cities, or scenes of cars racing around at impossibly fast speeds.  Some shots looked so clearly computer generated, that I thought I was watching a video game cut-scene version of The Great Gatsby.  I don't think I've ever said this about a film before, but I'd call it over-directed.  The whole film was just too busy and there were times I wish Luhrmann would just stop playing around with the look of the film, moving the camera around, and just concentrate on telling the story.  This did calm down a bit as the movie went on though, especially during some of the more dialog-heavy scenes.

The music I found extremely distracting as well.  In what felt like a lame effort to try to give this more of a modern feel, there are lots of hip-hop and dance songs throughout.  This is worsened by the fact that many times this is mixed with the actual background music heard, so you've got this cacophony of musical styles and songs with different tempos being played over one another.  During the credits I saw that Jay Z co-produced the score, and then it made sense.  Who else would shoehorn a remixed version of Beyonce's "Crazy in Love" in The Great Gatsby?  I'm not kidding, that song is in the film.

So, what's the story about?  Nick (Tobey Maguire) is a bond salesman in 1920's New York.  He lives in a small, but comfortable house on the outskirts of town.  This house is dwarfed by a huge mansion directly next door inhabited by the mysterious and elusive Gatsby.  Little is know about Gatsby; who he is, where he got his money, what he does, but the one thing everyone does know about him is that he throws great parties.  People come from all over (uninvited, I might add) to hang out at Gatsby's mansion even though none of these people actually know him.  Nick gets a formal invite, a rarity, to one of these parties and meets Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio).  The two become friends, and eventually Gatsby asks Nick for a favor.  He wants to reconnect with an old love of his, Daisy (Carey Mulligan), who happens to be Nick's cousin.  They have not seen each other in five years, and in that time Daisy has married rich sportsman Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton).

My only real familiarity with F. Scott Fitzgerald is when Loki (Tom Hiddleston) played him in Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris, so yeah, I haven't read the book and didn't have any ideas about the story going in.  After hearing what a classic novel this was, I thought I was going to be in for a treat as far as depth of story and characters, but that's where I thought this adaptation really let me down.  All of the characters felt very one-dimensional to me, with the exception of Gatsby, but like with Daisy, there's just nothing to her character that makes you see why these men are in love with her (other than the fact that Carey Mulligan is very pretty).  She's just there.  In other cases, they go out of their way to make sure you don't have any reason to like them.  For example, Tom Buchanan is not only is cheating on his wife, but he's jealous of Gatsby, and he's a racist.  I've often railed against movies that romanticize extramarital affairs, and this is no exception.  Daisy and Gatsby begin their affair, and they don't appear to have any conscience about it.  It's not until Gatsby finally pushes her to leave her husband, and then you see a little bit of internal conflict.  I felt like I was watching a very slick looking soap opera.  I'm guessing that Luhrmann and co-writer Craig Pearce's script didn't capture the depth or these characters or story.  Otherwise, I'm not sure what makes this a classic.  Most of the movie hints that there's more to Gatsby than he's letting on, but when it's revealed I couldn't help thinking, "that's it?"

I'll give credit to the performances though, especially with Leonardo DiCaprio.  He really was charismatic as Gatsby, and turned in another fine performance.  He was easily the best thing about the film for me, and was the only character that went through any kind of emotional range.  I also liked Joel Edgerton's performance, despite not really liking his character.  Another standout for me was Elizabeth Debicki as Jordan.  I believe this was her first role, and I thought she looked like someone plucked right out of the 20's.  While I think Tobey Maguire's wide-eyed enthusiasm worked for his performance, I thought there were problems with his narration, especially as the movie began.  It sounded like he was speaking with a labored voice, as if to convey he's much older, but then when you finally see him, he's the normally aged Mcguire, so what's with the voice?  It didn't sound like that throughout the film, so maybe he was sick that day?  The cast is rounded out by Isla Fisher and Jason Clarke, who were fine, but not given a ton to do.

Gatsby might have been great, but The Great Gatsby isn't.  It has it's moments, but the visuals were too flashy and distracting for their own good and the soundtrack was annoying.  Leonardo DiCaprio was great as Gatsby, but found myself really not caring about anyone else in the film or what was happening.  It's another case of style over substance.  I suppose it's going to come down to whether or not you like the visual style of the film, but it didn't work for me.  DO NOT see this in 3D!  I'm calling this one a rental.

2 (out of 5) Death Stars

Django Unchained (2012) - Movie Review

Bounty hunters, we don't need their scum.

A former dentist turned bounty hunter, Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), is in pursuit of a trio of slave trading brothers.  He frees a slave named Django (Jamie Foxx), as Schultz believes Django can help identify the brothers. The unchaining and the adventure begins.  Django and Schultz hit it off and Schultz takes a special interest in Django once he tells him the story of how he was separated from his wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington). Schultz makes a deal with Django to become his partner in bounty hunting for the winter and then he'll set Django free and help him find Broomhilda.

I'm often reminded of another tale of a bounty hunter named Jango, who was a simple man just trying to make his way in the universe.  I don't recall what happened to Jango, but I heard he lost his head over something a long, long time ago.  I heard Samuel L. Jackson was somehow involved.

Back to the unchaining.  They eventually track down Broomhilda, and learn she's been purchased by a plantation owner, Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio).  They travel to his plantation, Candieland, to free her.  I hear Candieland was located next to Chutes and Laddersville.  Here's where the movie got a little odd for me, as their plan to free Broomhilda seemed needlessly complex.  When their plan is uncovered Candie still agrees to sell Broomhilda and seemed more upset about their deception.  I thought this was the one real weakness of Quentin Tarantino's story.

Another issue was the massive use of the 'n word'.  I expected to hear it from time to time considering the period and subject of the film.  I figured that's how slavers spoke, but it's said like every other second and by just about every character.  I can see this being really offensive to some, especially when it's used for comedic effect.  It was kind of shocking to hear it said, but then it's said so much that you almost become desensitized to it, which isn't a good thing.

The good news is that Django Unchained has that brutal, over-the-type violence you've come to expect from Tarantino.  One of the things I really appreciated about this was the lack of CG blood. It just has a better feel and I have a more visceral reaction when they use blood packs, and believe me, they use a lot of them.  It's the one area where I wish filmmakers would abandon use of computer animation.  Tarantino also understands how to use the anticipation of violence to build tension.  The longer the movie goes on, the more you keep expecting something to happen suddenly.  There's a great scene near the end of the film with Leonardo DiCaprio where the whole time I was expecting something to explode.

You also get much of Tarantino's off-kilter humor throughout the film.  Despite the overuse of the 'n-word', Tarantino is still a great dialog writer, which has always driven his films.  There's great chemistry between all of the actors.  Christoph Waltz is fantastic!  In relatively short period of time, Waltz has become one of my favorite actors and I love watching how much fun he he's having with role.  Dr. Schultz a flair for the dramatic, and you see he even has a code he follows.  I was kind of worried that Jamie Foxx was going to be the weak link, but he played off Waltz well and I really enjoyed the character.  I feared he was just going to try to play a bad-ass without any nuance about it, but turns out I haven't been giving him enough credit as an actor.  Leonardo DiCaprio infused some life into the second half of the film with his awesome portrayal of Calvin Candie.  He's a mustache-twirling villain if I've ever seen one.  There's never a moment where you don't see that he's a sick, evil man.  It's always more entertaining to watch a film when you can tell all the actors are really into their roles and having a blast with them.

It's interesting to me how a lot of Tarantino's films are tributes older film styles.  He clearly wanted make an old fashioned spaghetti western, and at times that's exactly what it is, just with Tarantino's flair.  I always look forward to seeing what genre or era he's taking on next.  Another recent trend of his is that the length of his films are coming dangerously close to getting out of control.  I didn't mind the length of Django Unchained, since I was entertained the whole time, but there were certainly scenes here and there that could have been removed or tightened up.  At 165 minutes, it felt like he either needed to cut it down, or split it into two films like he did with Kill Bill.

Whether you're a fan of old westerns or Quentin Tarantino, you should enjoy Django Unchained. It's definitely a little too long, and some might find it offensive, but if you can get past that, it's a fun ride with great performances and the type of humor and violence you've come to expect from Tarantino.  I strongly recommend checking it out.

4 (out of 5) Death Stars