The Review – The Wolf of Wall Street

The Plot

Jordan Belfort, a.k.a. The Wolf of Wall Street, rises from lowly beginnings to the high, corrupt echelons of Wall Street. Be prepared for drugs, sex, violence, and flying dwarves.

The Main Characters

Jordan Belfort

Addicted to drugs, addicted to sex, addicted to money. The man everyone hates, but everyone secretly wanted to be. Immature and undoubtedly vulnerable, Belfort is very much the subverted tragic hero of this tale.

Donnie Azoff

Working as a waiter, Donnie is picked up by Belfort and soon becomes his right hand man in the business. Definitely the funny character of the film, his argument with Mad Max is a particular highlight. But my God, those f***ing teeth, that’s all I’m going to say…you have been warned…

Naomi Belfort

Sexy and seductive, Naomi is a temptress of the highest order. Initially involved in an affair with Jordan, she marries him for his money and leaves him when Jordan hits rock bottom. She may be sexy, but she’s a cold-hearted bitch.

The Positives (***SPOILER ALERTS***)

DiCaprio as Belfort

Before I start, I will state that DiCaprio is my favourite actor therefore, I’m likely to be a tad bias. However, this was new ground for DiCaprio. He had to fuse comedy with serious acting…and he obviously succeeded. DiCaprio’s performance is so good in this film that he makes you both despise him throughout the film, and yet when Belfort loses everything, and I mean everything, he makes you feel sympathy for Belfort. There are few actors in the world that have the ability to make you feel sympathy for a character who is entirely unlikable. Let me state this: DiCaprio was not the reason why this film did not get the Oscar for best film, I repeat, DiCaprio was not the reason for this film’s failure to get the Oscar.

Hill as Donnie

I don’t usually go for characters who have big fake teeth clearly for the laughs. However, Hill’s character is so much more than this. As previously said, his argument with Mad Max over an inordinately expensive dinner had my sides splitting. That is one of many instances. The duo of DiCaprio and Hill was epicly funny and I really hope they do more film’s together in the near future.

Portrayal of the Ludicrous Extravagance of Wall Street

I’m not saying that Wall Street is definitely like this. That would be far too much of a generalisation. However, I imagine an element of Wall Street must be like this. Obviously I’m not an expert and obviously Scorsese exaggerates the corruption and lavish lifestyles of Belfort and his cohorts for dramatic effect. Nevertheless, the amount of money the top dogs at Wall Street must have means they must lead pretty lavish lifestyle, which, in my personal opinion, comes across very well in the Wolf of Wall Street.

The Negatives (***SPOILER ALERTS***)

Drugs, Alcohol and Sex

Don’t worry, I’m not jumping on the media bandwagon, criticising the film for the inclusion of pretty explicit drug and sex scenes. I am certainly not a prude and have watched many films with extreme amounts of drugs, alcohol and sex. All I want to ask Scorsese was did he really need to include as much of it as he did? Unfortunately, I realised how corrupt and unbelievably wealthy Belfort and his crew became after the first few scenes of ultimate corruption and money wasting, so for me, the film could have chopped off about half an hour and been all the better for it. Sorry Mr. Scorsese, I still love all your films…I promise…

The Best Part (***SPOILER ALERTS***)

For me, the argument between Donny and Mad Max, Belfort’s father. Not only was it unbelievably funny, it was one of the best ways of highlighting Belfort and co’s real vices; they are so wealthy and earning so much from being corrupt that they can spend $20,000-$30,000 on a meal and basically not give an utter shit.

The Worst Part (***SPOILER ALERTS***)

I’m not going to choose a worst part of the film, partly because there isn’t a specific part of the film I can pick out as something I particularly dislike, but also because my memory of the film is a little hazy, considering I watched the film over a month ago! There are elements of the film I dislike, but no individual moment.

Would I recommend it?

I’m not completely sure. Whilst DiCaprio was great, again, as was Jonah Hill, and pretty much the rest of the cast to be honest, I left feeling really disappointed. When you go to see a film directed by Martin Scorsese, you expect the film to be pretty god damn amazing. I suppose the expectation is all part of being an award-winning director. However, when it’s Martin Scorsese, you just expect that little bit more, with films such as Goodfellas, Shutter Island and The Departed. If you’ve never seen a Martin Scorsese film, then I would recommend it; it’s a great first Scorsese film to watch, but there’s definitely better Scorsese films to watch afterwards. If you have seen a Scorsese film, I suppose I would still recommend it, I mean it’s still a good film, but I wouldn’t be saying:

“You haven’t seen The Wolf of Wall Street yet? What are you doing with your life?”

because I wouldn’t want you to feel the disappointment that I felt. I’d be more like:

“You haven’t seen The Wolf of Wall Street yet? Well that’s ok, you should check it out sometime though, it’s pretty good.”

Just to quickly compare, if you haven’t seen The Dark Knight, I would definitely be saying:

“You haven’t seen The Dark Knight? (mouth wide open in disbelief) Have you been in a coma for the past 6 years? Have you actually been dead for the last 6 years? Seriously sort your life out!”

My Rating (out of 10)

7/10 (It would have been 7.5, maybe 8, if the film had been about half an hour shorter)

Damn you degree, damn you!

Well, it’s been a month since I did my last blog post, let alone anything else to do with my blog. Genuine shock I kid you not. Unsurprisingly, university work has taken over my life for the second time since Christmas, although a month since my last blog post is a bit crazy really. What is crazy though is how much work I’m having to put in to get pretty good marks in my degree. It is literally eating up my life, yes, my life. I have had no free time in the past 4 weeks, no time to do my blog, no time to write, no time for Twitter, no time to respond to comments, and for that I apologise.

However, I now have time to spare; more of it than I had anticipated in fact. So I thought I’d do a little post about what you can expect this blog to be and do from this time onwards.

This blog is a blog about writing and will remain a blog about writing, with short stories, chapters, and my views and opinions on writing. I will also continue to review films and books, trying to do one per week in my own and, I’d like to say, unique format.

I’m trying to get a schedule sorted out so that I can organise my blog post and blog more regularly. Not sure exactly what it’s going to be like, but it will include reviews, opinions, short stories and a little bit of fan fiction hopefully as well.

So yes, damn the bloody degree with its stupid amount of research, but that’s over (for now). My focus shall be more on the blog, which I shall be doing regularly, and with a small schedule in place, I should be able to continue blogging when the workload gets heavy again.

Sorry if this has been a bit of a boring read, I just thought I should let you know what’s been happening and what’s going on. Oh, also, I’ve been having a cheeky read of my new Sherlock Holmes book, which is the entire collection, so expect some reviews of those stories in the near future.

Happy blogging!

Review – The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Here is my almost-short review of the film I have been waiting for sooooooooooooo long. Enjoy reading!!!

Courtesy of http://www.totalfilm.com

Plot

Bilbo and the Dwarves continue their journey to the Lonely Mountain, with man-eating spiders, crazy ninja elves,  and a scary-as-hell Necromancer. Oh, I almost forgot the fudging huge fire-breathing dragon. His name is Smaug. The Magnificent. Sometimes the Terrible. He is pretty terrible.

Main Characters

Bilbo

Bilbo Baggins, a hobbit from the shire, way out of his comfort zone but growing into a hero with every passing moment and every passing spider, orc, warg, and other foul creatures.

Thorin

Thorin Oakenshield, leader of the Company, is a rather grim but serious fellow, who has a love-hate relationship with poor Bilbo. He might not take kindly to you but you’d want him on your side in a fight!

Gandalf

With more problems on his hands than a criminal octopus, Gandalf takes the fight to the Necromancer, entering Dol Guldur with naught but Glamdring, his staff and his rather fetching hat. As Admiral Ackbar would say, “It’s a trap!”

Positives (May contain Spoilers)

The portrayal of the One Ring is, in my own humble opinion, very, very good. In the book, the One Ring seems like Bilbo’s plaything, a little tool for Bilbo to use at his own disposal. Perhaps that is because it is a children’s book, but it never really added up when in the Lord of the Rings, it’s a massively evil, needs-to-be-destroyed-type thing. Anyway, in the film, whenever Bilbo puts on the Ring, you can hear the Black Speech and all the other shizzle that happens. Top notch, Mr. Jackson.

Smaug. I think that’s all I have to say. The design, the voice, the action, just everything. It’s epic.

The time spent in Mirkwood is another huge positive. I was curious with how they would portray Bilbo and the Dwarves coping with the stifling humidity of Mirkwood, and I’m pleased to say I wasn’t let down. Bilbo and the Dwarves go just a little bit crazy. When a say a little, I mean a lot.

The combat, especially Legolas and Tauriel, is truly spectacular to behold. Now, I know what the naysayers and the cynics will say; CGI, CGI, CGI. I admit, a lot of the action is CGI, well most of it is, but it looks so freaking awesome, seriously, who cares? I mean I certainly don’t, especially if Legolas keeps producing those slick orc-killing moves. Someone produce a montage now please?

Negatives (May contain spoilers)

I think the worst thing about this film is the little time dedicated to Beorn. This isn’t just because I really liked his part in the book. He’s meant to be a huge part of the Battle of the Five Armies (***SPOILER ALERT***), so not giving him a longer introduction feels a little wrong to me.

Best Part (May contain spoilers)

It has to be Gandalf’s insane fight with the Necromancer/Sauron. I was actually in awe when I saw it in the cinema, mouth open and everything. I seriously cannot wait for the confrontation with the Necromancer in the final film.

Worst Part (May contain spoilers)

I was quite disappointed with Beorn’s appearance. Like before, it’s probably because I’ve read the book and had an image of him envisioned in my mind, however, I didn’t think he’d have hair on his face or be rather tall and gangly. In his bear form, he looks awesome. I just expected him to be muscular, sort of bear-like in appearance.

What is unique about The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug? (May contain spoilers)

Well I suppose there are loads of easy things to pick out, such as a talking dragon, skin-changers, etc. However, the really unique thing about The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is how personal the film remains in such an epic setting. Bilbo travels across practically the entirety of Middle Earth, fighting all manner of creatures, meeting all manner of people, Gandalf is dealing with the evil Necromancer, and the Mirkwood Elves are preparing for some serious shit to go down. That’s all pretty epic. And yet, when you watch it, it still feels like you’re watching Bilbo’s journey, watching his character grow whilst all this chaos goes on around him, which I think is pretty unique.

Would I recommend The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug? (May contain spoilers)

Probably a silly question but yes, definitely yes. It is easily the best film I have seen in 2013, even better than Catching Fire, which is a big thing to say, as Catching Fire was excellent. It’s dark, very dark, much darker than An Unexpected Journey, which it should be, because a journey through Mirkwood and up to the Lonely Mountain should be anything but a jolly. As for the acting, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, and Sir Ian McKellen all play their parts brilliantly as Bilbo, Thorin, and Gandalf respectively. As for the content, it doesn’t feel drawn out or boring. And all of the material included from The Silmarillion and The Appendices does not feel out-of-place at all. In fact, it feels needed, its feels as though without the new material, the film would have been weak, thin and rubbish. So yes, this film I would definitely recommend.

My rating (out of 10)

9/10 (it would have been a 9.5 if the Beorn section had been longer)

Film Review: The Hunger Games (2012)

I thought I should do a little review of The Hunger Games considering The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is coming out next week.

The Hunger Games. What can I say about it? I like this film. I really, really like it. When I first saw this last year in the cinema, I came into it as a complete novice having not read the books or having seen any of the trailers. I was kind of a sceptic, having been persuaded by my girlfriend to accompany her to see it. To my complete surprise, it was really, really good and I was pretty happy I’d seen it. Here’s a few reasons why:

Firstly, I like the main character, Katniss Everdeen. She’s completely different to any main character from a successful fantasy movie. To start, Katniss is a girl, which makes a nice change from the norm of a group of macho males dominating the movie. Seriously, can anyone actually remember the last time a successful fantasy film had a female lead character? I can’t. Jennifer Lawrence provides a great performance as Katniss Everdeen, making Katniss feel very believable as an angry upstart from one of the least well thought of districts who mainly cares about revolution from a personal standpoint: protecting her family, mainly her sister. This allows us to have a connection with her, which is always needed if you want to have a really good film. When Katniss feels upset after Rue dies, we feel pretty gutted for her. When she has to leave her sister behind, we feel pity for Katniss. She’s a really good, strong female lead that we haven’t seen in a long time and is a breath of fresh air.

Other good things about The Hunger Games. Hmmmmmm…..let me think. Well, as a big fan of dystopias, I really like how the film portrays Panem, the nation in which The Hunger Games is set. It seems like a cross between Nazi Germany, with the outright subjugation of the nation using the Peacekeepers, and Communist Russia, with the constant surveillance of all the districts. My favourite element of the dystopia, though, is the complete disparity between the Capitol and the outlying districts. It is a little obvious I admit, I mean the make-up and the outfits just completely show off the excess of the Capitol, especially when compared with the plain clothes and starvation of the outlying districts. However, it is effective and it is realistic. It’s like the people of the Capitol are laughing at the poor districts and rubbing it in that they control all the wealth, much like the controlling centres of totalitarian regimes.

Alas, I hate to do this, but I do have a few bones to pick. And I’m afraid to say they aren’t minor ones, not major mines, but not minor ones either. First of all, the film contains very little narrative. I’m sure the book is different, but I just felt the film driven more by the action than the narrative, and considering it’s the first in a trilogy, it’s a quite a problem. Watching the film again tonight, the film kind of glides along, jumping from bit to bit without any character pushing it forward. If I were to give a little advice (which they don’t have to take, I’m not really qualified to provide advice), I would have used Caesar Flickerman, the main commentator, to push the narrative forward in the film a little more. It isn’t a huge criticism, I personally felt the film was a little disjointed at times.

The second criticism is one of some poor explanation in the film. Like before, I have been told on good authority that it is explained well in the book, however, the film falls down a little here. Example 1: we aren’t really told how Katniss and the rest of District 12 came to be in such poor circumstances, except by a revolution, even though other districts aren’t as poor as the outlying districts. Example 2: we aren’t really told why the government favours Districts 1 and 2 during the Hunger Games, we’re just sort of meant to assume they do. Example 3: we aren’t really told why Haymitch is their mentor, we aren’t really told he was a victor of the Hunger Games. I may be wrong, but these are pretty significant parts of the movie and could have done with more explanation, even if they were a little constrained by time.

Hopefully, I have given a pretty fair review to a very decent movie. Even with the criticisms, this is still a very good film and very easy to watch. In fact, I’m glad the movie had some bad points because I’m hoping the series can only get better and end on a real high, which many trilogies fail to do nowadays. This film is a great watch and I cannot wait for The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, coming out on 22^nd of November to a cinema near you!!!!!!!!!

As a little add on, here is the trailer for The Hunger Games: Catching Fire:

Stay tuned for more posts.

If you like what you read, follow my blog or follow me on twitter: @jcwriter678