← Back to Reviews
in
The Wolf Of Wall Street
A corporate epic that masquerades as a cautionary tale about capitalism but in reality its just a movie about debauchery and crime with filmmakers having a bit too much fun on screen and most importantly it appeals to 14 yr old kids due to lot of obscenity,machismo,misogyny and criminal behavior.
Portrayal of debauchery has never been done better on screen. That's partly because of 130 million $ price tag on the movie.One of the things I noticed is a trend during awards season.If a movie is the flagship movie of a major studio, then that movie will inevitably get nominated for some Oscars. To be a flagship movie of course it had to be good but in terms of box office and hype, the movie would be well received. If Argo was not distributed by Warner brothers then it would have been a very good thriller but not an Oscar winning thriller.Wolf of wall street bumped Jack Ryan movie into January and became an Oscar player.
One of the major flaws of the movie is its shallow nature and its appeal to multiplex superficial audience.Ever wonder why Damien Chazelle won Oscar on his second movie where as Scorsese had to wait 30 years ? its because of story telling quality of Scorsese which in this movie is very shock value based. Lets show breasts !!!! shock value , lets show drugs !!!! shock value,lets show sex!!!! shock value, lets show people getting whacked !!! shock value. There is nothing deep in the movie. There has been no movie at this scale made since Casino, so the current generation of moviegoers felt that its very fresh.
The script of the movie had some outrageously funny sequences but the main strength of the movie in terms of its staying power all the way till the academy award nominations is its box office performance overseas in Europe,Asia and Australia. And the reason its nominated for Oscars and not 22 jump street is because its a real life story and its directed by Scorsese and its a movie not based on an IP.
The critics circle in LA and New York is a bunch of auteur fanboys and businessmen. If a critic is an auteur fanboy then they will give certain leeway and pass if their favorite director makes a movie.I noticed it during 2013 Oscars wherein people started criticizing American Hustle as a Scorsese ripoff even though the movie is much complex than a Scorsese movie can ever be.Where as a sub-par and superficial movie about wall street like this one gets a pass and praise because its a Scorsese movie.Same with the big short.When that movie came, people were so hell bent on judging this comedic director turned serious filmmaker that half of their reviews contained how a comedic director made a serious movie.That is a disgrace to journalism.The other half businessmen are favor based critics. As long as the marketing team of the star or the studio or the film takes care of them financially and socially they praise the movies and stars. It helps even more when your star is popular.
Transition from comedy to drama is one of the most difficult things to do in Hollywood not just because of the commercial risks at box office but also because of the circle of people you work with. Traditionally serious dramas and epics have created filmmakers who developed a foothold in the elite circles of Hollywood and that continued on into academy voting community. So an auteur making dark comedy gets praise where as a straight up comedic director making a dark comedy gets scrutinized.
A corporate epic that masquerades as a cautionary tale about capitalism but in reality its just a movie about debauchery and crime with filmmakers having a bit too much fun on screen and most importantly it appeals to 14 yr old kids due to lot of obscenity,machismo,misogyny and criminal behavior.
Portrayal of debauchery has never been done better on screen. That's partly because of 130 million $ price tag on the movie.One of the things I noticed is a trend during awards season.If a movie is the flagship movie of a major studio, then that movie will inevitably get nominated for some Oscars. To be a flagship movie of course it had to be good but in terms of box office and hype, the movie would be well received. If Argo was not distributed by Warner brothers then it would have been a very good thriller but not an Oscar winning thriller.Wolf of wall street bumped Jack Ryan movie into January and became an Oscar player.
One of the major flaws of the movie is its shallow nature and its appeal to multiplex superficial audience.Ever wonder why Damien Chazelle won Oscar on his second movie where as Scorsese had to wait 30 years ? its because of story telling quality of Scorsese which in this movie is very shock value based. Lets show breasts !!!! shock value , lets show drugs !!!! shock value,lets show sex!!!! shock value, lets show people getting whacked !!! shock value. There is nothing deep in the movie. There has been no movie at this scale made since Casino, so the current generation of moviegoers felt that its very fresh.
The script of the movie had some outrageously funny sequences but the main strength of the movie in terms of its staying power all the way till the academy award nominations is its box office performance overseas in Europe,Asia and Australia. And the reason its nominated for Oscars and not 22 jump street is because its a real life story and its directed by Scorsese and its a movie not based on an IP.
The critics circle in LA and New York is a bunch of auteur fanboys and businessmen. If a critic is an auteur fanboy then they will give certain leeway and pass if their favorite director makes a movie.I noticed it during 2013 Oscars wherein people started criticizing American Hustle as a Scorsese ripoff even though the movie is much complex than a Scorsese movie can ever be.Where as a sub-par and superficial movie about wall street like this one gets a pass and praise because its a Scorsese movie.Same with the big short.When that movie came, people were so hell bent on judging this comedic director turned serious filmmaker that half of their reviews contained how a comedic director made a serious movie.That is a disgrace to journalism.The other half businessmen are favor based critics. As long as the marketing team of the star or the studio or the film takes care of them financially and socially they praise the movies and stars. It helps even more when your star is popular.
Transition from comedy to drama is one of the most difficult things to do in Hollywood not just because of the commercial risks at box office but also because of the circle of people you work with. Traditionally serious dramas and epics have created filmmakers who developed a foothold in the elite circles of Hollywood and that continued on into academy voting community. So an auteur making dark comedy gets praise where as a straight up comedic director making a dark comedy gets scrutinized.