Sexy Cineplexy: Reviews

And your definition of a "man" is what, exactly?

I haven't read the The Wolf of Wall Street, but I've seen the real Belfort in interviews (he also makes a brief appearance in the movie) and I'd say that DiCaprio is the better choice for the role.

__________________

Nice review. But I also don't agree with everything you said.

After watching the movie I thought the characters where money hungry scumbags, who ripped people off for drugs and prostitutes. Although I did laugh. And for the family's who was ripped off, they chose to invest money in him, no one forced them.

__________________

Glad you liked the movie Sexy. And yes this movie totally blows American Hustle away.

__________________
Fear and Loathing in MoFo... The Gunslinger 45's Top 50 Favorite Films

In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's reviews

I love the way you write so much, so many great parts in your review too. And I agree with most of it too.

Ime not saying what they did was right. All ime saying is those people weren't forced into giving there money away. I didn't finish watching the movie and think... Damn ime gonna con people.

I don't think they're mutually exclusive. Most of the time, when people are tricked, they are also being foolish--or even greedy, allowing their greed to overwhelm their critical faculties. Being fooled can be put down to vice just as often as naivete.

But anyway, you can easily despise him for tricking them and also recognize that they could and should have been able to avoid letting him.

It's hardly a reason to be negative about the movie tho. At the end of the day it's just a movie.

One can acknowledge the movie is fantastic and still think the protagonists are damn dirty sons of b!tches. Which they are. And I am one of the biggest and most vocal fans of the flick.

Nope. I don't know any of the people in question and have no idea if they were naive angels or greedy jerks--and neither do you. And while wanting to be rich isn't a sin, greed is, and there's a fine line between the two.

Whether or not it matters what compelled them depends on the question you're asking. It doesn't matter legally, because being greedy or gullible doesn't excuse fraud. But it matters if you're trying to determine how and why it happened.

Actually, it is, because this heavily abused canard about free will can't be applied selectively. Once you criticize someone's behavior (as you have his), you've conceded that people's actions can be criticized, which applies to all parties. You can't flip that metaphysical switch on just one side of the issue.

And some people are, yeah? He tricked a lot of people. I don't think all (or even most) of them are being greedy or careless. Do you think the opposite extreme: that all of them were doe-eyed innocents who couldn't have possibly known better?

Why not? Seems to me this is how we learn.

Who said they deserved it, and who said they don't deserve our sympathy? Let's ditch the binary thinking. People should be able to express nuanced thoughts about culpability without being accused of taking sides or "blaming the victim." These things aren't mutually exclusive.

Great review SC; I don't completely agree with everything either, but I think you make valid points to back up your opinions. I did not feel that the nudity/sex in the movie was over the top. I didn't think it was erotic or graphic, and if it was to be realistic, I think it was quite tame. I also thought the indulgence shown with sex and drugs was quite normal to be honest, they just made it funny. A lot of that stuff they showed is just a regular night on the town for some guys. The difference here is the money, fancy cars, the yacht, etc., but the debauchery is common behavior. The guy was a scumbag, but movies and life are full of scumbags who are looking to get a free ride off someone else. I'm not sure why this movie creates such debate over glorification. There's plenty of movies with thieves, murderers, pimps, dealers, the mafia, con men, and every other kind crook. Why does this movie cause such a backlash? I imagine the reason is because it's so much fun. You're right that Leo was upstaged by Matthew in that scene, but he was supposed to be. I still think Matthew has a long way to go before he should be held up in the same regard as Leo. I personally liked Leo's performance in Wolf more than Matthew's in DallasBC. They were both great; I think it's awfully hard to say who was better. But I feel that the DallasBC role was major Oscar bait. I thought MM was going to win that Oscar before the movie even came out, and obviously I hadn't seen the performance yet. Anyway, I'm glad you enjoyed the movie.

All good points again; I like how you said Scorsese deals with a lot of them, because I was specifically thinking of Goodfellas when I wrote that.

I think Wolf focuses so much on partying because it's a comedy, basically Animal House on Wall Street. Without all that, maybe it's a drama or a crime film, or worst of all-an intellectual comedy. Screw that, I love Animal House style.

I have become quite a fan of Matthew M., but like you were saying, I'm no expert at judging performances either.


Either the quoting function doesn't work too great on the iPhone, or I don't know what I'm doing that well.

Yea you know what I mean, they're just raunchy comedies; college/Animal House, Army/Stripes, Golf/Caddyshack, Wall Street/Wolf. Wolf is more polished and based on a true story, but to me it's just a great, raunchy comedy.

I'd agree with Cricket that this movie gets picked on more than others. Take Scarface for example. It's about a lunatic drug dealer who kills people, and takes drugs. Yet the character is an icon. You can by canvases, bedding, action fingures, cups, clothes....etc. There are thousands of movies out there that make bad things seem cool, but it doesn't mean ime gonna go out buy a machine gun and put my head in a pile of coke. What happened to those people was wrong, ime not going to go into all that. But, the movie was very entertaining, and shouldn't be slammed the way it does.

The film was hardly glorifying the lifestyle of those guys, in my opinion. Except of course if your goal in life is to become an empty-headed overly materialistic sociopath.

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

Jordan Belfort didn't kill anybody. I think you're trying to compare apples and oranges.

The point he is trying to make is not necessarily about killing. And with the way he has put it I actually agree with him, even though I like the movie.

What he's doing is being a hypocrite..

He says himself that he loves Party Monster. Do you think the friends and family of the victim appreciate the humorous take on that story? I doubt it.

He says himself that he has no problems with the movie and still enjoys them , but despite this enjoyment he can see problems with the movie and can say why people would have problems with them. He doesn't think the friends and family of those involved with Party Monster will enjoy it, nor does he think those affect by Jordan Belfort will enjoy The Wolf of Wall Street.

Did I say that you hate the movie? No. I said you're being a hypocrite. You don't have to dislike something to be hypocritical about it.

This statement came from a man who is a fan of both Caligula and Pink Flamingos:


Again, from a fan of Caligula and Party Monster (also based on true stories):

And I'm still waiting for an answer to my question, Sexy.

But the movie wasn't about the victim's. It was about Jordan and his lifestyle.