Rate the last film you watched...

[Elite]

Fackin' Mugs.

[Jose Jones]

Finally got around to watching The Wolf of Wall Street.

 

Shit. Very disappointing.

Shit? Come on.

[Hades]

Thor: Ragnarok. 6/10

 

Thought it was alright but don’t see what the fuss has been about. Way too comedic in places and very underwhelming.

 

Impressive sets and visuals in places but just didn’t have enough to it for me.

 

Really wanted to like it but left the cinema shrugging my shoulders almost.

 

Can probably copy and paste this reaction for every Marvel movie.

[Juniper]

Can probably copy and paste this reaction for every Marvel movie.

Nah not really. Some are pretty decent.

[Total Longo]

It's a prequel. If you watch the first one before it you will be wondering why the actors are badly aging backwards. The main bloke in this is about 25 years too old for the part.

So is Fairbrass playing Pat Tate AGAIN?

[cloggypop]

So is Fairbrass playing Pat Tate AGAIN?

Yes. Looks more like his dad

[Total Longo]

Yes. Looks more like his dad

It hasn't got that other whopper in it playing Tony Tucker again as well has it? 

 

Terry someone? Really bad wig.

[Tony Moanero]

So is Craig Fairbrass playing Craig Fairbrass AGAIN?

 

 

.

[Bjornebye]

Finally got around to watching The Wolf of Wall Street.

 

Shit. Very disappointing.

 

 

Really? Its a fucking boss film that 

[SammyAftershave]

It's no laughing matter lads. I have to sit through the 'Death by RomCom' scenario once a year. 

 

Sleepless in Stuttgart?

[VERBAL DIARRHEA]

Love Achtungly

[John101]

The Foreigner.

 

5/10

 

Jackie Chan looks like he he's been dead for 6 months, then stuck in front of a camera.

[SammyAftershave]

Schalkespeare in Love.

[thegreatelephant]

Deliver Us from Eva Braun

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Shit? Come on.

It looks like it was made by someone who wants to be Scorcese, but doesn't have a tenth of his talent.

 

At the start, di Caprio tells us he loves shagging, drugs and money. Three hours later, that's still all we know about his character. And everyone else is even more two-dimensional.

 

It's never really clear how he makes his money, why the rest of Wall Street shun him or why the FBI sre on his case.

 

It's just 3 hours of boring, unlikeable nobheads shouting. The "party" scenes are like being stuck with some boring cunt who insists on telling you what an AMAAAAAZING time he had taking more drugs than everyone else. Even the gratuitous nudity becomes boring. None of the film rang true. Even the choice of soundtrack wore thin.

 

Shit film.

[SasaS]

Told you so.

Plus there is very little Wall Street in it and no wolves whatsoever.

[Jose Jones]

It looks like it was made by someone who wants to be Scorcese, but doesn't have a tenth of his talent.

 

At the start, di Caprio tells us he loves shagging, drugs and money. Three hours later, that's still all we know about his character. And everyone else is even more two-dimensional.

 

It's never really clear how he makes his money, why the rest of Wall Street shun him or why the FBI sre on his case.

 

It's just 3 hours of boring, unlikeable nobheads shouting. The "party" scenes are like being stuck with some boring cunt who insists on telling you what an AMAAAAAZING time he had taking more drugs than everyone else. Even the gratuitous nudity becomes boring. None of the film rang true. Even the choice of soundtrack wore thin.

 

Shit film.

What a strange way to look at it.

It’s explained all the way through the film how money is “made”.

McConnaughy’s character explaining how the stock exchange is a fugazi, Di Caprio’s firm ripping off investors and the whole Steve Madden insider trading deal.

 

The main point of the film is that society venerates Wall Street when it’s full of narcissistic greedy tosspots.

[SasaS]

What a strange way to look at it.

It’s explained all the way through the film how money is “made”.

McConnaughy’s character explaining how the stock exchange is a fugazi, Di Caprio’s firm ripping off investors and the whole Steve Madden insider trading deal.

 

The main point of the film is that society venerates Wall Street when it’s full of narcissistic greedy tosspots.

 

He doesn't work on Wall Street proper, McC's brokerage has to lay him off because of a 1986 crash and he actually joins the "boiler room" firm, which only deals in risky junk stock sold directly to the public, and he is very persuasive in selling this stuff, which is not properly explained in the film, because Scorsese is ultimately not interested in this (I doubt he understands much about financial markets) he is only interested in showing  excesses of lives of basically small time crooks who are allowed to make it big due to loopholes, greed by both general public and parts of actual Wall Street also investing through them and poor regulatory system- Which is all explained in that other film about markets, where they actually make an effort to do so, rather than showing the endless parade of cocaine, yachts, blowjobs, champagne etc.which is visually impressive for the first 30 or 45 minutes but than gets tedious because its ultimately shallow.

 

[VladimirIlyich]

It looks like it was made by someone who wants to be Scorcese, but doesn't have a tenth of his talent.

 

At the start, di Caprio tells us he loves shagging, drugs and money. Three hours later, that's still all we know about his character. And everyone else is even more two-dimensional.

 

It's never really clear how he makes his money, why the rest of Wall Street shun him or why the FBI sre on his case.

 

It's just 3 hours of boring, unlikeable nobheads shouting. The "party" scenes are like being stuck with some boring cunt who insists on telling you what an AMAAAAAZING time he had taking more drugs than everyone else. Even the gratuitous nudity becomes boring. None of the film rang true. Even the choice of soundtrack wore thin.

 

Shit film.

Agree with a lot of this. I found the film quite entertaining in parts,as long as you leave your brain at the door,but I'd forgotten about it ten minutes after it finished. I'd say the difference between WoWS and The Big Short is that I was thinking about the messages in that film for quite a while afterwards. I also hate DiCaprio and that Jonah Hill twat so WoWS wasn't an easy watch for me. Style over substance is probably an apt description.

[Jose Jones]

SasaS, on 15 Nov 2017 - 09:34 AM, said:

 

He doesn't work on Wall Street proper, McC's brokerage has to lay him off because of a 1986 crash and he actually joins the "boiler room" firm, which only deals in risky junk stock sold directly to the public, and he is very persuasive in selling this stuff, which is not properly explained in the film, because Scorsese is ultimately not interested in this (I doubt he understands much about financial markets) he is only interested in showing excesses of lives of basically small time crooks who are allowed to make it big due to loopholes, greed by both general public and parts of actual Wall Street also investing through them and poor regulatory system- Which is all explained in that other film about markets, where they actually make an effort to do so, rather than showing the endless parade of cocaine, yachts, blowjobs, champagne etc.which is visually impressive for the first 30 or 45 minutes but than gets tedious because its ultimately shallow.

 

The whole thing that Scorsese is interested in showing is that the behaviour at Stratton Oakmont is exactly akin to those on Wall Street. And thus the behaviours that led to the GFC are easily explained. The whole financial system is full of and run by people like those small time greedy crooks. Ay caramba!

[Pureblood]

Have to disagree about Cameron, Avatar was a pile of dung and the fact that he just tends to either mooch about underwater and film the titanic wreck or try and turn his non 3D films into 3D suggests he isn't bothered really about doing anything decent at all. If his only forays into new movies are Avatar sequels and trying to breathe life into the corpse that is The Terminator franchise, then god help us. 

 

I also felt with hindsight that Prometheus was actually better than Covenant. Certainly a better premise, albeit clumsily delivered. Covenant now feels like he pandered to the fanboys, it was a lot better film before the Xenomorph showed up. 

 

Titanic is a guilty pleasure of mine, I can watch it over and over.  Absolute Cameron genius imho. 

 

10/10

[AngryOfTuebrook]

The whole thing that Scorsese is interested in showing is that the behaviour at Stratton Oakmont is exactly akin to those on Wall Street. And thus the behaviours that led to the GFC are easily explained. The whole financial system is full of and run by people like those small time greedy crooks. Ay caramba!

None of that is in the film. None of "mainstream" Wall Street is shown, so it's not possible to draw parallels. More importantly, there is scarcely a mention of the people who are on the receiving end of whatever shady deals di Caprio's firm get up to, so their actions appear victimless and the whole thing turns into a celebration of excess.

[Jose Jones]

None of that is in the film. None of "mainstream" Wall Street is shown, so it's not possible to draw parallels. More importantly, there is scarcely a mention of the people who are on the receiving end of whatever shady deals di Caprio's firm get up to, so their actions appear victimless and the whole thing turns into a celebration of excess.

Well he starts out at Goldman Sachs, where he learns the secrets of ripping people off and shit loads of booze and drugs.

 

Scorsese made and released the film post GFC and all that entailed so maybe you have to take that into account when considering the context of the film.

[Jockey]

None of that is in the film. None of "mainstream" Wall Street is shown, so it's not possible to draw parallels. More importantly, there is scarcely a mention of the people who are on the receiving end of whatever shady deals di Caprio's firm get up to, so their actions appear victimless and the whole thing turns into a celebration of excess.

 

I think that is deliberate. I don't think  it is a film about finance, it is a film about the excess of financial markets in the Us. Certainly that is what I got from the book - his complete indifference to the fact that he blatantly sells shit to poor investors. I think it is quite good the way it is left unsaid - the implication that what he actually sells is not the problem, the fact that people lose money through poor advice is irrelevant.

 

I don't think this is about Wall Street, it is about the excesses of one man and the system that is in place that allows this behaviour. 

 

I'm not a huge fan of the film, I preferred the book, but I think it is a bit unfair to criticise it for its lack of focus on the financial markets and Wall Street as I don't think it is about that. 

[Total Longo]

Agree with a lot of this. I found the film quite entertaining in parts,as long as you leave your brain at the door,but I'd forgotten about it ten minutes after it finished. I'd say the difference between WoWS and The Big Short is that I was thinking about the messages in that film for quite a while afterwards. I also hate DiCaprio and that Jonah Hill twat so WoWS wasn't an easy watch for me. Style over substance is probably an apt description.

 

What? How is this even possible?