I chose the movie Wolf on Wall Street because I wanted to see it after hearing all the hype surrounding it, however I was disappointed after watching it, and did not like it at all, I found it shallow and almost as if it was promoting rising to the top in an unfair and corrupt way. So I thought it would be interesting to see what the good reviews for the movie would say.
The first review I read was by Richard Brody of the New Yorker and it was praising Leonardo DiCaprio for his ability to fully embody the character he is playing. He also says that he thinks every actor cast in the movie could win a supporting actor award for the impact they made on the success of the movie being entertaining. I thought the review was structured quite well, he explains the plot line of the movie exceptionally well, and then further analyzes the actors and the impact they had on the overall production of the movie. He talks the movie up big time, saying that Scorsese's directing was exceptional and gave the movie a very "rhythmic swing" type of vibe to it. Basically, I understand the writer was very entertained and he enjoyed the directing and cinematography saying, "Its furious cinematic inventions are no mere flourishes; they’re essential to Scorsese’s vision of Belfort’s story, and to the disturbing moral ideas that he extracts from it". You can tell by the tone of the review that the writer didn't regret a second of the movie and was fully captivated by the message behind it, finding it both meaningful and a good portrayal of the actual Wall Street Broker, Belfort, that was being depicted. The author uses words like wild, brilliant, essential, sharp, and great to describe the movie, making the reader want to grab their jacket and run to the nearest theater and experience the movie for themselves, he is very convincing. I think he mostly focused on the actors and directing, only briefly mentioning the plot-line in the beginning, and then jumping to the real life story that it is portraying. I think he did this because though the movie was entertaining it was not advertising a moral message, and was in fact promoting the opposite for the majority of the movie, so I think in order to sell the movie to the a greater audience he focused on the great acting the actors clearly did, and the amazing directing Scorsese achieved. By the tone of the review you can tell the genre he was leaning towards was mainly action and excitement.
The second review I read was by Joe Morgenstern from the Wall Street Journal and it wasn't quite as much of a thumbs up as the first. The author talks about how the movie was entertaining....up to a point, and then it just gets repetitive and wears you down. He talks about Scorsese's ability to sell a vulgar movie in a entertaining light, and says he does a good job of directing the movie and keeping it focused on the crazy stuff Jordan does that most people never do in their lifetime. He says DiCaprio has an ability to sell any character he's playing, clearly praising the actors chosen for the film. The tone of the review wasn't completely disgusted by the movie, or downright hateful. He admits that it was entertaining, and sees the fascination and why the audience was drawn to it. However, he says, "eventually, though, the pandemonium wears you down; in my case, eventually meant the end of the first hour, with two more hours to go". He credits Scorsese on making the film very much unique to his directing style, and it was very apparent in the swirling set pieces, and spectacular camera moves. I think he mostly focuses on the director, because you can tell he thought the directing was very well done, however the author wasn't sold on the story. He mentions quite a few times that it was a hallow spectacle and shallow. I think he thought the film was entertaining and well made, but the message it was sending wasn't anything worthy of praise or encouragement.
"No, of course Scorsese doesn't approve of Belfort’s actions; who would? We may wish that such behavior didn't exist, but its existence is a central part of human nature, and there’s a reason that we can’t stop watching, just as we can’t stop watching the terrifying storm or the shark attack" (Richard Brody) I agree with the point he made, because clearly its evident even in the amount of sales and popularity this movie has cultivated. Even though no one approves on stepping on people to get to the top or engaging in illegal business, its always entertaining to hear about the people who have. Maybe it really is just human nature to be drawn to things that have the potential to hurt us, and walking on the thin line between right and wrong is invigorating and exciting. Either way Scorsese managed to portray something frowned upon in a light that made it appear exciting and almost praise worthy.
"Martin Scorsese's epic-scale comedy of criminality, adapted by Terence Winter from Mr. Belfort's book of the same name, is selling three hours of incessant shouting and sensationally bad behavior—mud wrestling without the mud that includes drugs, booze, debauchery, degeneracy and dwarf-throwing. It's meant to be an entertaining, even meaningful representation of the penny-stock maestro's life and times. But I couldn't buy it, and couldn't wait for the hollow spectacle to end". (Joe Morgenstern) I agreed with this statement, because even though the movie was entertaining, I feel like it was very dragged out. It focused on the shallow and superficial lifestyle Jordan led, filled with drugs, sex, and money, and it was interesting and got the point across within the first half hour, but it went on for a good hour, and by the end I was losing interesting. I wasn't sold completely either on the life he was living, it wasn't something to be proud of yet it was portrayed like a party. It didn't really capture my attention, and all the explicit content and constant swearing was excessive and unnecessary in my opinion.
If I hadn't seen the film I think I would have agreed with the positive (first) review. It was longer, and went way more in depth about the movie and the actors and directing than the second review. Also it referenced a lot of specific parts of the movie, as opposed to the review against the movie. I think its important in a review to not only state your opinion but to also support it, and the New Yorker review did that very well. I didn't really like the movie, but I was almost convinced that maybe it actually was good after reading his review. He spoke about it in such a good light, and the tone of the review made you like the movie before even watching it. I think a good review is one that fully immerses itself into the full movie and the making of the movie and even so much as the actors and their previous acting styles that helped make the movie what it was. A detailed review is definitely more interesting to read, as well as more convincing.
If I were to write a review I think I would definitely focus on the main plot line of the movie as well as the director and the style of his directing, because I think that influences the movie so much, and can set the tone for the whole movie good or bad. For example, in the Wolf of Wall Street, there really wasn't a positive message about the life Jordan lived, because it was filled with vulgarity and it was senseless and meaningless, however Scorsese portrayed it in a good light and made it entertaining, funny, and even towards the end gave it a moral standpoint. I would definitely focus on talking about things like that in my review. Also I would talk about the actors and how well they played their roles, because if they weren't convincing in who they were playing the movie can become dull and hard to sit through. I would leave out any bad parts, that the majority of people would agree are shallow or pointless, if there are any in a movie. I would leave out parts that I enjoyed but didn't completely love because I want to focus on what I completely loved the movie for, and the parts I hated. If I cant even take a set standpoint on the inbetween I wouldn't want to attempt to make it better or worse to my readers.
