Review of "The Wolf of Wall Street"

Warning! Contains Spoilers!

Martin Scorsese! Yay! Leonardo DiCaprio! Yay! Mathew McConaughey! Meh! Jonah Hill! Yay! ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ was set for a winter release and as such it clearly had its sights on Oscar gold. I frankly enjoy DiCaprio and Scorsese so I was greatly excited for the coming flick. My only trepidation came from the title and topic. Wall Street. “Not again” I almost groaned. Was this going to be another corrupt city stock broker story with drugs, excesses, questionable morals and an eventual revelation come feel good ending? But this was Scorsese. With a three hour movie at an 18+ rating. I had hope. The cinema was packed. Show time!

Jordan Belford (DiCaprio) is on the up and up. As a burgeoning stock broker type person he gets some life lessons from a new mentor (Mathew McConaughey). The rules are simple. To be a success he must never give in on a sale and prevent the mirage of the stock world from being exposed to those who own stocks. Survival in this world can only be maintained by a lifestyle of constant sex, drugs and alcohol. What follows is years of success combined with sex, drugs and alcohol. Belford and his business buddy (Jonah Hill) get very greedy and end up ruining everything. As his work falls apart so does his home life. Soon left with no family, no business and no more drugs, Belford is sent to jail on over forty counts of being a bell end. He prison ends up being little more than a country club with barred windows and he now makes a living training others to be as big a bell end as he used to be.

Is there anything more American than making money?

Scorsese has that great ability to find the right people for the job. He didn’t disappoint with this cast. DiCaprio is mesmerising as the lead. Belford shocks us and makes us laugh but fundamentally the man is a monster. DiCaprio carries this movie from start to beginning. It was no easy task. Fundamentally we must buy into the character from the get go as this is especially a first person story. Belford starts his journey as an ambitious yet naive business man with a happy marriage. By mid movie he has become a junky millionaire who corrupts everything he touches. Before the curtain falls he is a washed out, beating his wife and endangering his children in a drug rage. I cannot think of anyone else in this role. DiCaprio nails it. 

Mathew McConaughey has a small role to play in this movie. He is on screen for a few scenes but dominates with a very unique performance. Fundamentally seen as a mentor, he paints the picture of a business world dominated by debauchery, cocaine and unpanelled riches. Belford eats it all up, listening intently. So do we. Our hope for the young Belford is being eroded by McConaughey’s speech. It is then that we start to see him closer. He is thin, his eyes intense, his expression always slightly vacant yet at the same time intense. It’s almost that he is focusing, but not on reality. Only later do we see what he actually was when Belford himself begins to fall. He is the devil tempting our protagonist towards damnation. He is a junky in an expensive suit with a spray on tan. If only Belford could see past his promises maybe could save himself. I am looking forward to “Dallas Buyers Club” after seeing this new McConaughey.

You can trust me. I'm Mathew McConaughey

What actor surprised me the most? Jonah Hill. He is the Hardy to DiCaprio’s Laurel. Or the Himmler to DiCaprio’s Hitler. He fought to work with Scorsese and then bust his arse to act his best. We don’t get his full story but still enjoy the constant companion he provides for Belford. The chemistry between both actors is magical on screen and no doubt was the result of much improvisation as well as good scrip and direction. With any luck this performance may take the career of Hill into new projects away from his staple comedy fat guy roles. 

Best bit? It’s hard to decide with such a great movie. The Quaaludes scene (this brand of drug known as Lemons) is probably the greats drug fuelled shenanigans seen since ‘Trainspotting’. Honestly, it was one of the funniest things I have seen in years. Anything that ends with a character having to take cocaine to save the day has to be worth a watch. See the film just for how terrible/funny this is. Despite this I have to choose something which is in no way related to the plot. It is so inconsequential that I believe many will have missed it. ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ contains the greatest man falling into a pool scene. Returning from one heavy night on the town (a normal work day) Belford lands his helicopter outside his mansion and stumbles home. Trying to compose himself and not wake the baby he manages the most convincing struggle with gravity vs. intoxication that ends with him swimming. But that fall. The only way it could have been possible was for Scorsese to get DiCaprio drunk and film him doing laps of a pool until the inevitable. Classic slapstick from a director and actor looking for Oscar success. 

When life gives you lemons...

‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ is a superb example of cinema at its most entertaining. It blurs the line between art and entertainment. Why do some not like it? It has been criticised for having no moral compass. But this is essential. ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ makes no apologies for its story. Neither does Belford. We hear nothing of his former wife, the lives of his children or the effect on those he conned. It isn’t about them. Scorsese and Belford leave the moral implications up to the audience. We know this wrong and terrible but dam do we want the money that Belford has. There is the great question. Can we have one without the other? Would we con ourselves into believing yes if we were the ones with the millions? During the movie a reporter interviews Jordan Belford about his company and its way of operating. Her article chastises Belford for his dirty dealings and underhand tactics and labels him the Wolf of Wall Street. The result of this bad press? The very next day his office is filled with young naive brokers wanting a piece of the cake. There is the answer.

Should have stuck with the Game of Thrones gig...

This is a fabulous film. I honestly laughed harder and for longer than during ‘Achorman 2.’ Go and see this movie, even if it’s just for the shock.

I give ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ five Brian faces out of five. Now sell me this pen.

 

Review of “Twelve Years a Slave”

Well this isn’t going to be fun. The cast list alone was enough to get me queuing for a ticket. Rave reviews and calls of ‘Oscar Gold!’ soon followed from an army of critics. But let’s face it – slavery, British villains, torture and ‘true story’ are not elements that lead to a barrel or laughs. This is going to be hard work and the audience knows it (I appear to be the only one buying popcorn, ice lolly and a medium coke with my ticket). Only thing left to do is sit back and watch over two hours of a movie that immerses the viewer into the greatest tragedy of the Western world. Yay…

A bit of plot. This is a true story so fundamentally I don’t think this counts as a spoiler. Solomon Northup is a free Negro man living in New York while slavery remains legal in the southern states of America. He gets kidnapped and shipped south where he is forced to give up his name and become a slave. After twelve years he is discovered by his friends from the North and freed. That’s the true story. It’s also the movie. “Twelve Years a Slave” doesn’t need to do much like throw in a few extra explosions or a love story. Read the above again. This actually fucking happened to a guy! Deep breathes…

The wonderful cast!

So what were the cast like? Bloody marvellous, to be short about it. “Twelve Years a Slave” is not just a simple big screen stage production but is more closely similar to a literary novel. There is a key relationship in the making of this tale. Chiwetel Ejiofor (Solomon Northup) and the director, Steve McQueen, work in tandem to produce a movie that almost feel first person. Long drawn out sequences with little to no camera movement or background music, constant close ups of our protagonists eyes, all this and more adds to the empathy and discomfort of the audience. Solomon says nothing when confronted by the infuriatingly preposterous barbarity of slaver and neither do we. We want to cry out for him but it is just as pointless. The dissenting voice of a slave carries as much weight in 1840’s Louisiana as my cry from the future does.

Our two main 'badies' enjoying some post production

The white folk. Predominantly we are talking about Benedict Cumberbatch and Michael Fassbender who respectfully play the part of ‘good man doing nothing’ and ‘evil man doing everything.’ Both are captivating in completely different ways. Both are utterly evil in completely different ways. McQueen does not want to make slavery an easy subject. Our two primary land owners exemplify this perfectly. One is easy to hate while the other is easy to forgive yet both are guilty of the same crime. Fassbender gets longer on screen to give his performance and dam well earns an Oscar as far as I am concerned. Slavery gives one man total power over another man. “All power corrupts” comes to mind in Fassbenders performance. But not just in action but also in soul. Edwin Epps (Fassbenders character) is not corrupt with power; HE is corrupt, down to his very black heart. White Devil would not be an inappropriate sobriquet.

The director, Mr Steve McQueen. Check out some of his other work. What an artist!

But was I entertained? Was this a film that needed to be made? What was it actually about and what was if for? I have to answer these questions for every movie. I find myself walking on egg shells when it comes to topics like religion, slaver or the holocaust. The cynical may say that using any of these themes in a film is easy mode for critical success because they are essential bullet proof when it comes to analysis. You have to get the tone right. For example “Twelve Years a Slave” is a legitimate movie about the plight of slaves but “Django Unchained” was not. As any best actor winner will tell you, “you never go full retard.”

This was a similar beginning to "The Hangover: Part 2"

So what type of film is “Twelve Years a Slave”? I find that the story fits snuggly into one category – horror. This was a horror movie. We have a free Negro man who lives on the edge of the abyss in safe New York suddenly thrown into the nightmare of slavery. And he cannot wake up. He cannot tell the other characters that he is in a demented dream because they exist in that false reality with him. Through expert storytelling, the director then makes the nightmare even worse. We find out from the other players that everyone is in this nightmare, not just Solomon. From plantation owner to field nigger, everyone is living in hell. How do they live within the inferno? We get it explained to us by different characters. Fear (of pain), death (by running or suicide, same result), self-delusion (religion), and substance abuse (alcohol). Everyone has their coping mechanism. Slavery was a living nightmare for everyone involved and “Twelve Years a Slave” doesn’t excuse or forgive anyone.

I give “Twelve Years a Slave” five Brian faces out of five. This story actually happened. Slavery actually happened. Make sure you see this film.