Change Your Image
tmkane-2
Reviews
The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Significantly Disappointed
Okay, I did laugh a few times. And some of the settings were nice.
The problems in society practically beg for movies to shed light on the excesses that occur in the financial sector. And given the money, the life style, the extremes, it should be low hanging fruit for Hollywood to exploit artistically. This has been a problem since 1980s, made more intensely urgent by the collapse of 2008 and the bludgeoning of tens of millions of livelihoods around the globe, while the bailout for Wall Street took only 3 days for Congress to cut out. Despite the need and opportunity, the intensity on capturing the excesses and the problems is not being successfully dealt with by Hollywood.
I saw strong ratings for this movie so I couldn't wait to go see it. I had hoped that we had a movie that nailed it on Wall Street current generation. Not really in this piece.
Okay my spoiler:
Overall, I though I saw this movie before, "Goodfellows." By following the same basic story arc, it undermines, in my mind, the quality of this piece, but also, I don't think I'll appreciate the quality I thought I saw in "Goodfellows" again. Its just a story about a guy dazzled by a morally inferior but materially superior life, gets sucked into the vortex of it and then over indulges until reality catches up.
(I really don't consider that to be a spoiler. You knew this story was going to be something like this before seeing, didn't you?)
Part of this, I think, is the biographical nature of the plot. Biographies usually are disappointing to me. DeCaprio has done his share, so me must like them, but they aren't really an entertaining plot line. I didn't really like "Citizen Kane", perhaps the all time favorite of critics, which has basically the same story arch of this film. Maybe Patton was the best (most entertaining) pure (based upon a real person) biography, though in my mind the best movie that uses a biography arc is "Its a Wonderful Life" because we can see, (even feel), the growth and change in character's formation, and it is entertaining. I've always enjoyed "Goodfellows" but have thought of it as sort of a docu-drama on real world mafia that merely borrowed the biography plot line.
(Perhaps more spoilage) Also, this movie could have been cut into half the length. Here we have a guy who wants to be a stock broker because he wants to make money that's the beginning. He stumbles into the idea of pushing penny stocks. Then we have him selling his troops on it (with noted no concern for the clients), then partying (to extreme), then increasing prosperity, then declining personal life, then repeat. In this case, repeat over and over and over again.
The actors in this movie helped convince me how much better the actors were in Goodfellows. Basically I never believed these guys, at least like I believed the guys in Goodfellows.
Meanwhile, we haven't had a good Wall Street movie since Oliver Stone did the original. (Unfortunately, Stone made two of the best movies ever, in the 1980s, Wall Street and Platoon, and hasn't done anything since. Wall Street II was good, I really liked watching it, but it was pedestrian compared to the original).
I'd watch this movie after it goes to HBO or some other cable. I'd also prefer it to be half the length. Once you see one pump up speech to the troops, one excessive party, and just a few scenes from his lifestyle, enough. Repeating that a half dozen times is boring.
In my mind, 4 stars is a great movie. 3 1/2 is almost great. 3 is worth paying to go to see in the theaters. 2 is worth seeing. I give this a 2 and a tenth. Its worth seeing if you have 3 hours to kill, but not worth paying to see. If you like watching Goodfellows every once in a while when it comes on Cable or renting it, I predict, you'll watch this one time, and then go back to watching Goodfellows when you feel like indulging in a Scorsese style film.
Every Time We Say Goodbye (1986)
Every time We Watch
This movie is not for everyone. However, I think it's a nice attempt at a WWII Casablanca type of plot. Casablanca was a bit like capturing lightening in a bottle, not easy to do. This movie manages it, I think.
I enjoyed this movie for a variety of reasons. A young Tom Hanks holds up his end. Not easy to do in this case - he has to believably play an American who went off to join the RAF before America became involved in WWII. If he isn't able to do this, the movie falls apart. Of course it has to be an American because that's the target audience, and that's part of the Casablanca meme.
Here's what I like about the movie: First: It shows you a little window into the Ladino world. It's interesting. Some people find it was harsh. But my father grew up in an ethnically German family in Chicago and he still remembers his father slapping his sister for having gone on a date with a boy of Italian descent. My brother married a Jewish girl and I don't think his in-laws ever got over the fact he wasn't Jewish. So the movie captures the times well: old cultures colliding with a new era of integration that would really pick up steam once the war ends.
Second: Jerusalem has been the center of a political storm ever since the end of World War II. But here we get to view and imagine Jerusalem as a peaceful back drop, where Hanks and other units go to convalesce, from the rest of the world that is waging in a world at war. To me, its a bit bizarre and serine and I really value the aspect of viewing Jerusalem that way. I can't imagine it that way now, but this movie allows me to imagine it that way back in the days it portrays.
Like Casablanca, it takes place in a similar climate, in a similar place, just collateral to the world at war, and like Casablanca the source of the tension is the constraints placed upon a true love relationship, like Casablanca, the movie ends at a scene in an airport where two lovers must be separated.
Better than Casablanca, the chemistry between Hanks and Marsillach over Bogart/Bergman (I think this is because Marsillach was husbanding some kind of internal tension at the time, and tension contributes to chemistry). Better than Casablanca the props, surrounding cast members and their roles (with important exceptions to Claude Rains and company, I'm talking about the non-character actors in Casablanca) and the setting. Unlike Casablanca, the plane taking off and the airport are all real, the city and the settings all look real as they are really in Jerusalem, not a Hollywood lot. Unfortunately the only fighter plane they used is a lone P-51d (or later version). The RAF wouldn't have flown those in the first half of 1942, and especially not in the Middle East (the Israeli Airforce had them, though, later on). That theatre was dominated by Hawker Hurricanes of Battle of Britain fame. I know I'm being picky here. Unlike Casablanca, the ending is hopeful for the relationship, but ambiguous. We don't know what will happen to the couple, but we do know to what course they have committed each other too.
For some reason, I would have liked more back story... Hanks decision to leave Missoula Montana, when and how he went about that, crossing into Canada and signing up, then off to war. Where though? England first? Battle of Britain? Then I'd like to have seen post story plot as well. Where does Hanks character end up? How does he end up? What's Marsillach's character's life like while he's away? How does she break her engagement with her cousin? What does she tell here parents and family and how does she cope with the intervening year? When and how does Hanks make his way back? Do they stay in Israel? If so does he join up with the Israeli Air Force? Where do they go after the war? America? Britain? Canada? What happens with the relationship and how do they make their way? Its a low budget movie. They did quite well with it, all things considered. I just would love the makers to redo it as a mini series or something. I would prefer, however, that they choose to leave Jerusalem and move to a land where there is little conflict. I could see them moving to Los Angeles, and Hanks getting a job in the aircraft industry there. The climate would be similar to Jerusalem's and there's sizeable Jewish communities there, many of which are familiar with the integration issues and so I think that would create the best spot. And for the next 50 years of their lives things would be peaceful. Eventually Sarah's family comes to visit. Perhaps they immigrate too, to get away from the conflicts in the Middle East, provide more opportunities for their large family, and be closer to their daughter. Well, there, I guess I just wrote my own sequel. The major theme being, after a world at war, a war fought mainly over nationalism, they retreat into peace, prosperity, integration and pluralism. I'm sorry for the conflict in the Middle East and Jerusalem particularly. The fact that Jerusalem is cast as a peaceful, restful backward to a world at war is what makes this movie so compelling.