Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by Yavin, Dec 25, 2013.
Thanks for that link. It is a good read.
Our group all felt the movie was long by about 45 minutes. Some thought the material with the first wife should have been cut; I disagreed, since that showed Jordan's beginnings and gave the audience a template about who he was prior to being successful. No one, though, had any legitimate ideas about what to cut to make up that 45 minutes. (The only sequence we all agreed on was the one with the butler. The only thing that served as to show Jordan, et al. being ruthless.)
I had no problem with the sex or drugs, though, by the end, I felt "meh" in every sex scene. It is overkill, I think, and that may have been the whole point. Everything is taken to excess and the extreme.
It's a 2.5 out of 4. I was ready for it to be over when Jorda brings the FBI guys onto his yacht.
Wow, supposedly someone counted 506 instances of utterance of the F-bomb in the theatrical cut...
Fu*k, that's a lot.
I have a mouth that's basically an open sewer and even I thought the characters were saying "fuck" ALOT.
Reminds me of the day a GF and I (long ago and not this one) agree to say nothing f*ck to each other all.Amazing how much of a real conversation you can have using 1 word.
Spell corrected. Love typing on a phone that changes grammar.
A 100% complete masterpiece. I still have a couple more 2013 films to watch but I'm pretty sure this will end up at my #1 spot. I thought the three hours was a hell of a lot shorter than most 80-minute movies. The thing just flew by and I just loved the "fuck stupid poor people" attitude. I loved the fact that Scorsese said fuck you to the majority of the people watching this and really showed these people for how they were. The loud parties. The sexy women. Power. Money. Hey, if you have power and money then I'm sure you're going to spend days, weeks or perhaps even years doing some of this wild stuff. I loved that the film didn't try and play these people as anything other than sleaze balls. At the same time, they were smart not to show any of the victims. I've been a fan of DiCaprio since seeing CRITTERS 3 back around 1992 or thereabouts. The guy just keeps getting better and better and I really thought he was superb here. I loved seeing this wild side of him and thought he was perfect. The same for the supporting players. A great soundtrack and especially the amped up version of the Simon and Garfunkel tune as well as The Beach Boys one.
As for any morals about going to see the film....blah. This is the same country who cheered on murderers like Bonnie and Clyde, Dillinger and various others during newsreels. It's the same country who allows countless trash on television and those 16-year-old knocked up teens or dimwitted Jersey boys are just as big of thieves IMO. I don't think anyone condones what happen but at the same time, I don't see the movie saying sorry about it. I think with its attitude is why this works perfectly as a comedy. Had they tried to make a drama out of this then I don't think it would have worked at all.
I've heard rumors of a 4-hour version and if so I'm am so there.
Speaking of Leo...
Anybody catch the entrance during the Golden Globes???...frickin hilarious.
Not happening. Scorsese doesn't believe in releasing multiple cuts of his films.
But he was forced to cut this one down by the studio and then the MPAA. I'm not sure what he took out but I'd guess we'll at least get the bits and pieces that avoided the NC-17.
EDIT TO ADD---Well, I just read an interview so I guess there won't be a longer cut. Apparently there's something floating around now with some extra scenes but....
He wasn't "forced". He was obligated, and he knew that was part of the collaboration in making the film. He was never going to release it at 4 hrs. There are multiple interviews where he says this and says that he doesn't believe in "Director's Cuts" aside from the theatrical version unless its a film that's been taken away from the filmmaker, which this was not.Sent from my VS920 4G using Tapatalk
Well, Scorsese is smart enough as the producer of a $100-million dollar movie that's going to struggle to make that money back not to go out and strike up some controversy that might keep people away from the theater. The very first reports that came out said that the film was too long to release so the studio wanted it cut down. The whole news of four hours just came out recently. The original reports were closer to 3.5 hours so obviously there was a lot more to this film that he would have released if it wasn't for the budget and of course the studio not allowing it. Forced. Contract obligations. Required. Whatever word we use I think it's clear that this was intended to be something even bigger. What I find extremely dirty about several of these interviews is both him and his editor saying the MPAA worked with them. Made suggestions on what to cut. Made deals saying if you cut scene A we will let you get away with what's in scene B. Time to pull at that documentary that attacked the MPAA because countless of filmmakers talk about how the MPAA won't tell them what needs to be cut and they just slap a rating on there. Did Scorsese/DiCaprio pull more weight? This is the first time I've ever heard of the MPAA actually giving suggestions and making deals.
I'm sure they did. If vocal MPAA critics like Wes Craven or Brian DePalma or even Oliver Stone had made that movie with an unknown actor, they would have had to take a chainsaw to it to get an R rating. They wouldn't have had to worry about getting it under 3 hours because they would have had to cut so much content that the movie would have ran like 35 minutes.
My point being - Scorsese doesn't consider any unreleased version valid, no matter how he got there, as long as the film wasn't taken from him. He's a man that takes seriously the collaboration aspect of filmmaking, and that includes the obligation to those who are financing his picture to deliver a certain amount of commerciality in his final film. This isn't anything new - he took the exact same position on Gangs of New York (states as much in the commentary), which also had reports in post-production of recuts to appease the studio (Miramax).
Brandon, Scorsese is my favorite director, favorite film buff and just my favorite person to listen to. As much as I respect his opinion and views, I can't help but think his thoughts on this would be much different before he met DiCaprio. He's become a lot more "mainstream" or "commercial" over the past fifteen years so I think the Scorsese of TAXI DRIVER years might feel differently. Wasn't it around 1997 or 1999 that they tried to fix the original color to TD but it was beyond repair?
Oh, I don't disagree that he had more arduous struggles in the past. But color of the final shooting in Taxi Driver aside I know of no attempts by him to alter any of his older films. I think he respects the history of the film in context of its time a bit much to push that particular angle.Sent from my VS920 4G using Tapatalk
I am very curious to know what you mean by this.
Who knows how much of this guy's story is accurate or embellished to make himself seem glamorous and (natch) to sell books. Either way, he doesn't seem particularly remorseful. His (dishonest) line is that he only targeted wealthy people, so "nobody lost their life savings." Oh, well, no problem then!
I wonder what his deal was for the movie rights. . .he may or may not be entitled to a cut of the profits and/ or residuals.
I don't think he means it quite that way, just that the kids who get knocked up at 16 and turn it into life long reality career campaigns (see: Farrah Abrahams/Teen Mom) are thieves of their own right, using their situation to grift money.
Now, I don't put them in any way on par with Jordan Belfort, who was a confidence man who absolutely screwed people intentionally and with full intent ripping people off. Jonah Hill did a fantastic interview on Stern today, where he talked about how odd it was that this was nominated at the Globes as a comedy. He pointed out that the temptation is high to laugh.. because it's so surreal - but when you realize these things really happened, and this is how these people behave it's not so much funny as infuriating. These were entitled wonks; we laugh at it because it's so outrageous a part of us doesn't want to believe it, to take it as a farce. When you step back and you realize this is how these people behaved, this is what they did with the hard earned money of others and you take that step back every moment isn't funny at all.. it's blood curdlingly enraging. You think about all of those people they knew were going broke while they paid out tons of money for meals and hookers and laughed about it. The drugs, the booze.
After Hill got done talking, it made me rethink the book as I read it and think about it differently and ask "why did I laugh?"
In that light, this is a much better film the second or third time.
He was actually on Pierce Morgan last night. I found the guy to be quite fascinating unlike others who simply win the lottery by being picked to be on MTV with zero talent. Again, people cheered Bonnie & Clyde and Dillinger back in the day so I'm not sure why so many are standing on a soap box and talking about how morally wrong this movie is. The amount of debate on this guy is just hilarious and on the interview last night he talked about the real problem, which is how Wall Street made friends with enough politicians to where laws could be changed and someone like this could steal God knows how much money and just serve 22 months. Heck, Henry Hill was a celebrity, including on Stern, for years after the movie came out and no one threw a fit about it.
He said last night that 100% of the profits from both books and the movie are going to victims. Apparently while on probation he had to give 50% of his earnings to the victims but since he's off probation it's pretty much up to him to give what he wants. Who knows if it's true but he said all profits are going to them.
Something Matt said, had this very screenplay been done as a drama then it wouldn't have worked. This material only works as a comedy and if people are offended that Scorsese didn't play sympathy towards the victims then I don't know what to say. I'm glad he didn't because yeah, it wouldn't have been funny then. Another thing this film is doing is showing the high life of a fantasy most people have. I think most want to be rich. Most want to bang hot women whenever they want. Most would like to party like they did here. I'm really not certainly how many people would turn down 10 years of that lifestyle even if they screwed others over. Yes, yes. We all want to be great humans. "Humans" is the problem and I think most might hate these people but there has to be something deep down where you want to have this lifestyle.
At the end of THE PUBLIC ENEMY and GOODFELLAS I didn't want to live that lifestyle even with all the things they got. At the end of this film I did want that lifestyle. I think people are just upset that there's not a sob story with non-stop tears about the victims. Wrong is wrong and there's no doubt about it but last night he said he didn't steal from the poor. Again, does that make it better? I guess that's up to the viewer.