Originally Posted by DonDadda59
Wolf of Wall Street: 8/10
Finally saw this a little while ago, been meaning to for a while. Scorsese is one of those directors whose style is so distinctive that you can tell who helmed his films (even other mediums like the pilot of Boardwalk Empire) without having to be told who it was. No different here. He added some new wrinkles visually- some of the shots mirrored his DP's work in 'Hugo' (specifically the moving shot of the trading floor from overhead). Also, voiceover has always been a Scorsese hallmark but he also added different character's thought from in-moment, which was overkill IMO.
This wasn't as tight as Marty's usual work, the editing was very shoddy in several very noticeable scenes, and some scenes were unnecessarily overlong and clearly winged. I usually like seeing directors' cuts and extended versions of film, but I'm glad it was cut down from its original run time. The performances were solid for the most part, a bit hammier than usual for a Scorsese pic (not counting Joe Pesci, but he's so damn good he gets a pass
). Overall, entertaining with some nice comedy bits but not in the realm of Scorsese's classics like Raging Bull, Goodfellas, or even Casino. More in league with the Departed or Gangs of New York, which obviously isn't a bad class to be in.
I had pretty much the exact same reaction. Then I read somewhere that the editing issues were intentionally designed to create this disjointed view the represents the spotty recollection from Leo's character's perspective.
If it were anyone but Scorcese, I'd call total horseshit, but I'm actually curious. I'd like to see it again.
Although another part of me wonders even if it were intentional and even brilliant, if it didn't make film more enjoyable, why should it matter.