The Official Movie Thread

[Kin]

Maybe I was expecting more, given the hype, hence my disappointment.  But I don't think anything about this movie was frank, or real.

Then I'm a little confused. Do you not think that what was depicted happened? Or do you not think they depicted the realities of it?

Was it hoping to represent or depict the excesses of that industry?  Maybe, I just thought it wasn't necessary.

You thought the movie itself wasn't necessary? Or you thought that those excesses weren't relevant to the story?

 

[Champ Kind]

Maybe I was expecting more, given the hype, hence my disappointment.  But I don't think anything about this movie was frank, or real.

Then I'm a little confused. Do you not think that what was depicted happened? Or do you not think they depicted the realities of it?

Was it hoping to represent or depict the excesses of that industry?  Maybe, I just thought it wasn't necessary.

You thought the movie itself wasn't necessary? Or you thought that those excesses weren't relevant to the story?

Bingo, sort of.  I haven't read the book, nor am I particularly interested in doing so, and I'm declaring that bias.  But it seems to me that the filmmakers made a conscious attempt to abandon any nuance, any ambiguity, and subtlety for hit-you-over-the-head-until-you-bleed obviousness. 

Case in point (minor Spoiler Alter): the scene where Jordan meets his wife for the first time, at his house party.  Jordan is talking to this beautiful blond and Jonah Hill, completely inebriated, makes quite a scene with his, um, appreciation for her beauty.  Now, what purpose did it serve to show his (I assume) prosthetic, ah, 'device' dangle for all to see?  Same argument for the language, it was just too much.

Now, if the point of the whole thing was to show how over-the-top and off-the-wall life on Wall Street can be then, well, great.  Mission accomplished.  I'm not sure we needed more of the knowledge, however, given Wall Street (redux), Boiler Room, etc.  I think we have a pretty good handle on how wild and crazy those guys can be. 

 

[Kin]

Case in point (minor Spoiler Alter): the scene where Jordan meets his wife for the first time, at his house party.  Jordan is talking to this beautiful blond and Jonah Hill, completely inebriated, makes quite a scene with his, um, appreciation for her beauty.  Now, what purpose did it serve to show his (I assume) prosthetic, ah, 'device' dangle for all to see?  Same argument for the language, it was just too much.

Well, I can't speak to you but after that scene I certainly didn't look at Jonah Hill's character the same. I certainly took away a different sense of how these guys, who were clearly different than the fictionalized and sanitized guys in Boiler Room and Wall Street, acted. Likewise with the "language"(which I assume means the cursing). If that's how these guys actually talked what purpose does it serve to sanitize it for consumption?

I mean, unless you're talking about shooting the same scenes but showing less or getting the point across without being as graphic but, honestly, if that's the kind of thing you're looking for I would genuinely question at this point why you'd go into a Scorsese movie expecting anything other than stark realism(unless, I mean, you think his best film is Hugo). His films have always been graphic and never been designed to not offend sensibilities.

I'm not sure we needed more of the knowledge, however, given Wall Street (redux), Boiler Room, etc.  I think we have a pretty good handle on how wild and crazy those guys can be.

Man, if you thought that those movies depicted the same level of behaviour as this movie we were watching some very different cuts.

 

[brianmac]

I'll have to agree with Nik. I found it almost painful to watch at times, and sure, it was very long and excessive, but I also think that all this is part of how Scorsese manages to portrait 'these people'. Most of it seems to be based on real events anyhow, the boat scene e.g. (which I thought was completely over the top while watching). Their lifestyle was (is) just so surreal, it sure makes it hard to watch, but I think that's part of the magic of the movie.

 

[Boston Leaf]

I saw 2 movies over weekend. The first was Non Stop with Liam Niesson...Entertainning...  but not a great movie. Almost like Taken in the air.. Real dumb action scenes at times...Then Sunday I saw The Grand Budapest Hotel..Loved it. From Wes Anderson.. Loved  the story the acting and its comedy...

 

[Champ Kind]

Liam Neeson has sort of become the new action hero, hasn't he?  Sort of an anti-hero, at least if we use the Rock / Stallone / Vin Diesel archetype.

Recently I PVR'd Shutter Island and found the time to watch it on the weekend.  I didn't like it.  So I find myself completely torn when it comes to Scorcese's work.  I'll leave aside the obvious greatness: Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Casino, The Last Waltz (which, for me, was amazing, though The Band is one of my all-time favorites).  Some of his films have been clunkers or, at least, not as good as I thought they should have been.  I'd include Wolf of Wall Street, Gangs of New York, and Cape Fear in this group.

I don't know, I guess that, for me, his style works on some things and doesn't on others.  I do have to say, though, that I love Boardwalk Empire, which he has a pretty big hand in creating.

 

[Kin]

Recently I PVR'd Shutter Island and found the time to watch it on the weekend.  I didn't like it.  So I find myself completely torn when it comes to Scorcese's work.  I'll leave aside the obvious greatness: Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Casino, The Last Waltz (which, for me, was amazing, though The Band is one of my all-time favorites).

Leaving aside the issue of the specifics of which ones you think are good and which you think aren't, why would that leave you torn on him? Are there any filmmakers who are batting 1.000? I'd think the fact that he made, conservatively, two or three of the best American films ever made would kind of answer that question for history's sake.

 

[Andy007]

Yea, Taxi, Bull, Goodfellas, Waltz, Casino, Mean Streets, King, have all cemented Scorcesse as one of the all-time greats. I haven't even seen other highly acclaimed films such as "Age of Innocence" or "The Aviator."

It's funny to me that he finally won for "The Departed" which, imo, was a very average (not to mention totally flawed) movie.

 

[Kin]

Yea, Taxi, Bull, Goodfellas, Waltz, Casino, Mean Streets, King, have all cemented Scorcesse as one of the all-time greats. I haven't even seen other highly acclaimed films such as "Age of Innocence" or "The Aviator."

It's funny to me that he finally won for "The Departed" which, imo, was a very average (not to mention totally flawed) movie.

I agree(I think the Departed was a very good movie but not a classic or anything) but I think that speaks more to the year than it being a case of it being a case of it being a career achievement award. Unless you wanted to make a case for Paul Greengrass directing United 93 I don't know what was legitimately better.

Anyways, I think it's forgotten that as good as some of the ones you mention are(although I'd put Casino behind Wolf of Wall Street and some others) Scorsese has always made the odd clunker along with the greats. New York, New York and The Age of Innocence and so on.

 

[Champ Kind]

Are there any filmmakers who are batting 1.000?

I'd have to honestly say Christopher Nolan comes pretty darn close.

But, no, obviously not every project will be equally brilliant.  I would say, however, that you're exaggerating when you say he's made 2 or 3 of the greatest American films ever.  That's a pretty heavy statement to make, though I understand why you said it. 

 

[Kin]

I'd have to honestly say Christopher Nolan comes pretty darn close.

You definitely liked Inception, the third Batman movie and Insomnia more than I did then.

But, no, obviously not every project will be equally brilliant.  I would say, however, that you're exaggerating when you say he's made 2 or 3 of the greatest American films ever.

Really? You don't think Goodfellas and Raging Bull just about make that statement as uncontroversial as possible?

 

[OldTimeHockey]

I think it's all based on opinion no?

I mean, there's quite a few films that can push them down. The Godfather, Citizen Kane, The Graduate, Schindler's List, etc;

 

[OldTimeHockey]

I mean here's one list

http://www.afi.com/100Years/movies10.aspx

Raging Bull can be found at number 4 but Goodfellas is all the way down at 92.

 

[Champ Kind]

I mean here's one list

http://www.afi.com/100Years/movies10.aspx

Raging Bull can be found at number 4 but Goodfellas is all the way down at 92.

Thanks for posting.

Nik, all due respect, but I can't believe you had included Goodfellas as part of the top 2-3.  Goodfellas > Godfather???

 

[bustaheims]

Nik, all due respect, but I can't believe you had included Goodfellas as part of the top 2-3.  Goodfellas > Godfather???

You're really misreading what Nik said.

 

[Kin]

I mean here's one list

http://www.afi.com/100Years/movies10.aspx

Raging Bull can be found at number 4 but Goodfellas is all the way down at 92.

That list is a pretty good argument for Scorsese though. Throw in Taxi Driver at #52 and he's got three films on the list, putting him in the company of(at a glance) only Spielberg, Coppola and Hitchcock.

edit: It's also a list that uses a pretty loose definition of an American film. I guess it means "financed by Hollywood" on some level but that's a pretty shallow concept. Bridge on the River Kwai was made by Brits, starred Brits, is about British troops, was filmed in Sri Lanka...

 

[Kin]

Nik, all due respect, but I can't believe you had included Goodfellas as part of the top 2-3.  Goodfellas > Godfather???

I mean, I don't even know if I'd say that The Godfather is my favourite Godfather movie but "two or three of the best American films ever made" isn't the same thing as saying "2 of the top 3".

 

[OldTimeHockey]

I mean here's one list

http://www.afi.com/100Years/movies10.aspx

Raging Bull can be found at number 4 but Goodfellas is all the way down at 92.

That list is a pretty good argument for Scorsese though. Throw in Taxi Driver at #52 and he's got three films on the list, putting him in the company of(at a glance) only Spielberg, Coppola and Hitchcock.

I'm not denying that Scorsese has made some fine films. Nor am I disagreeing that he's one of the best American film directors ever.

I'm just pointing out that opinions will vary.

I mean, the fact that you placed Raging Bull and Goodfellas as cementing him in that spot despite some of his other films coming in between those two on another 'American Film' chart goes to show that opinions are like.....you know the rest.

 

[Kin]

I'm not denying that Scorsese has made some fine films. Nor am I disagreeing that he's one of the best American film directors ever.

I'm just pointing out that opinions will vary.

No, I got that. It's just a little odd to do so by seeing my opinion that Scorsese had made two or three of the greatest American films ever made and, as a counterpoint, replying with a list that claims that Scorsese made three of the greatest American films ever made.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

I'm not denying that Scorsese has made some fine films. Nor am I disagreeing that he's one of the best American film directors ever.

I'm just pointing out that opinions will vary.

No, I got that. It's just a little odd to do so by seeing my opinion that Scorsese had made two or three of the greatest American films ever made and, as a counterpoint, replying with a list that claims that Scorsese made three of the greatest American films ever made.

But by that list it's the 92nd best movie. That's like saying he was the 92nd best NHL player ever..which is nice and all but doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot.

Like I said, I'm not disagreeing with you..Just stating that many people have differing opinions of who is great, who isn't...It comes down to taste in the end. I'm not a huge Rollingstones fan. I wouldn't put them in the top 5 for rock acts ever but a good number of people would.