I really enjoyed Payne's last two films before this-SIDEWAYS and THE DESCENDENTS, because he gets the most wonderful performances out of people and I think of his films as what many Coen brothers films would be without the occasional snark and more occasional condescension. I might have to dig out ELECTION and ABOUT SCHMIDT and watch them now.

I agree Jeff! Though to be honest, I didn't like ABOUT SCHMIDT a whole lot...felt it was OK but overrated. ELECTION on the other hand is a very good, if cynical, satire.

Overall though I think Payne has grown quite a bit -- his strongest work IMO is from SIDEWAYS on, and especially his last two pictures.

Ghostbusters

I first saw this film as a kid and loved it. In fact I must have seen it four or five times the summer it was released. It was just unlike anything I (or anyone else) had ever seen before. I'm happy to say that 30 (!) years on, it is still great. What's impressive about Ghostbusters is that, while it is, before all else, a comedy (and a very funny one) it effectively integrates elements of other genres -- mainly horror, but a touch of fantasy as well.

Although Bill Murray is essentially the "star" of the film, it is very much an ensemble piece, with Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis (God rest him) and Sigourney Weaver on a nearly equal footing, and supporting players Rick Moranis, Annie Potts and Ernie Hudson enjoying a fairly foreground presence as well. And as much as Murray is funny, I personally find Moranis even more amusing as the hapless Louis Tully, and for me the funniest sequence in the film is when the gargoyle appears in Louis' apartment and chases him down the street.

Ghostbusters frequently transcends the comedy genre, with un-comedy-like touches. The opening, with its imposing crane shot of the lions outside the New York Public Library (a foreshadowing of the gargoyles which will appear later in the film) and Elmer Bernstein's portentous music is more horror than comedy. The film's photography features low key, spooky lighting (when most comedies are shot high key). And contrasting the laughs are moments that are genuinely scary -- like the monstrous arms that emerge from Dana's chair as she is adbucted into another dimension, and the "Exorcist"-like scene where Venkman finds Dana is possessed and she speaks in that demonic-like voice, and levitates.

Richard Edlund's effects work hold-up incredibly well today -- the stop-motion animated gargoyles look no less convincing than any modern-day CGI creature, and the Stay Puft Marshmallow blends seamlessly with the shots of the real Manhattan streets as he stomps through town. Few of these effects could be better executed with modern technology (and would probably look less real with CGI).

As much as Amadeus looked amazing, I really think the Oscar for Best Art Direction that year should have gone to John de Cuir (who wasn't even nominated). His designs for this film are simply phenomenal, and surpassingly imaginative, from the Ghostbusters' nuclear accelerator packs and smoking "ghost traps" (which look fully functional) to the grotesque art deco architecture of Dana's apartment building, to the otherworldly look of the interdimensional temple (or whatever is is) where Gozer appears.

Elmer Bernstein's score is one of his best, and greatly enhances all of the film's comedic and dramatic (and spooky) elements. The songs for the most part work well too. Although Ray Parker's "Ghostbusters" is a very simple and even silly tune, it just works. Unfortunately the film falters when the ghosts are released and the song "Magic" starts to play -- completely draining the life out of what would otherwise have been a very funny and suspenseful sequence with Bernstein's music.

The climax at the apartment building -- despite its share of laughs -- has a palpable sense of doom, as Gozer appears intent on destroying the world. (It also now possesses an eerie resonance the filmmakers could never have foreseen, as the various shots of terrified New Yorkers gazing up a crumbling, burning skyscraper now unsettlingly recalls 9/11.)

Finally, Ghostbusters is a film where just about everything works perfectly. The cast, director and everyone else were at the top of their game and everything just clicked into place (except "Magic" of course!). An uncontestable classic.

-The Wind Rises (2013): 9/10

Hayao Miyazaki's last(?) animated feature is visually gorgeous and emotionally expansive, if too long and subdued for young children. His career-long obsession with the majesty of flight comes to the fore in this, and serves as a fond farewell to the anime master after a three+ decade career. Arigato, Miyazaki-san...arigato.

THE WIND RISES 9.5/10

Just came home from seeing Hayao Miyazaki's latest (and according to him, last ) film, THE WIND RISES at the Alamo Drafthouse in Kalamazoo (a gorgeous new theater chain to this part of Michigan with food you can order to be brought to your table while you watch a movie and a VERY strict no texting/talking during the movie policy...which I LOVE).

My friends, you have...to...see...this...film. Miyazaki's anime might not have the fluidity of a Pixar or Disney animated film, but there is a soulfulness and beauty in his images and his characters that I have not seen in a Pixar film since TOY STORY 3 or any classically animated feature film produced in this country since THE IRON GIANT years ago. This story about the man who loved flying (but who could not actually become a pilot himself due to poor eyesight) but who worked diligently on designing an aircraft that could-in the historical timeframe of the film-do anything he demanded of it is so human and so gripping that after a while you are no longer thinking you are watching an animated film. To take a real historical figure and tell their story in such a way that live action would not have done it justice takes cinematic genius, and that is what is on display here.

This film lost the Animated Feature Oscar to FROZEN. While I take nothing away from that film, which contained some truly stunning 3D computer animation and some truly beautiful artwork, Miyazaki's film feels a bit more emotionally and cinematically resonant to me than the film that won. This film has stirred up some controversy in Japan amongst those who have strong nationalist feelings and some of them have condemned the film for having a mild condemnation of war at the end, and of course there are some there who have a problem with the film supposedly making a hero out of the man who designed the Japanese Zero fighter, perhaps the deadliest plane of WWII, and perhaps that conundrum is what kept it from winning an Oscar (not really being released widely until now probably did not help, considering that FROZEN is still playing in some theaters).

I sincerely hope that this will not be the last film we get from this master of his craft, but if it is, I can truly say that he went out at the top of his game, and perhaps what one of his characters says in the film about artists having about 10 years of greatness before losing their touch is advice he felt he needed to take, even if he actually waited many years more than that. Bravo, 巨匠 Miyazaki.

FROZEN
8/10

(from next week's column)

A box-office phenomenon that just crossed the $1 billion mark at the worldwide box-office, Disney’s FROZEN is an enchanting (if somewhat overpraised) take on Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Snow Queen” – a story that Walt Disney himself envisioned producing as a feature in the 1940s.

Embracing modern themes of female empowerment and not holding back one’s true self, “Frozen” focuses on two sisters: good-girl Anna and her older sister Elsa, who holds magical powers that turn anything she touches into ice. After Anna accidentally harms Elsa as a child, their parents – rulers of the kingdom of Arendelle – decide to keep Anna separated from the rest of the world. Years later, however, when Anna is crowned as the new princess, she inadvertently lets free of her icy touch, causing a permanent winter that enshrouds the kingdom in snow.

The characters in “Frozen” are thoroughly appealing and charmingly drawn, particularly Olaf, a comical snowman (delightfully voiced by Josh Gad) who comes to life after Elsa lets go of her powers, and Sven, the voiceless reindeer of Kristoff – one of two male leads who vies for the affections of Anna. Kristen Bell brings her usual energy – as well as a strong singing voice – to Anna while Idina Menzel voices Elsa, whose big power ballad – the Oscar-winning “Let it Go” – is reminiscent of her “Defying Gravity” number from the Broadway show “Wicked.” Both songs fulfill the same purpose – conveying a sympathetic anti-heroine’s moment of independence – and each manages to be the centerpiece of its respective production.

There are many laughs to be found throughout “Frozen,” though a few issues hold the movie back from the elite company of, say, “Beauty and the Beast.” The male leads are bland, and Anna and Kristoff’s supposedly blossoming relationship isn’t given much development – perhaps a song might’ve helped in this department. Speaking of the music, the songs by Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez are seldom more than workmanlike – “Let it Go” excepted, their Broadway-styled numbers lack the melodic hook of Alan Menken, and most are easily forgotten. The CGI rendered animation is also something of a disappointment given Disney’s history – while the characters are spectacularly articulated, one wishes more had been done, visually, to the supporting animation, especially the surprisingly plain backdrops of snow-covered mountains. The opportunity was here to produce an engaging visual pallet, but more often than not, the backgrounds are mostly uninspired.

Although I wouldn’t consider the film a “Disney classic” despite its commercial performance, there’s no doubt that “Frozen” is at least a thoroughly entertaining picture that has already captivated children around the world. Its energy, likeable characters and accessible story make it one of Disney’s finest “in-house” features in recent memory.

The Hunt For Red October (1990) 8 of 10

-It's a testament to how many years I'd gone without seeing this that I realized for the first time that Seaman Jones of the Dallas was later the ADA on "Law And Order: Criminal Intent"! And there's one other unintentional irony of the film in that the political officer that Connery kills at the beginning, who is depicted as the quintessential Soviet propagandist is named "Putin".

-The film still holds up incredibly well as a straight-ahead story with the right level of character shading, and more importantly it retained everything good about the novel even while of necessity streamlining certain aspects (for instance in the novel, the Americans sink an old submarine to fool the Soviets into thinking Red October has sunk and then the second Soviet sub finds them later and we have the climactic fight then). It's unfortunate that the two follow-up films failed to do that.

12 YEARS A SLAVE: 9.5/10

For a film to leave me silent for a long time after watching it, that I feel a need to gather my thoughts a bit more thoroughly before discussing it, takes quite an event. This happens about once a year-last year it was ZERO DARK THIRTY and the year before that was HUGO, and as you can see with those two, it does not necessarily mean a serious, heavy film every time (the Scorsese affected me because I FINALLY felt that someone had gotten it right about cinema history plus showing the magic in parts of that history). Last night I watched Steve McQueen's powerful, almost too intense dramatization of Solomon Northrup's 1853 memoir with blistering performances by Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Fassbinder, Lupita Nyong'o and others.

To try and be concise about this film is difficult. McQueen does not rely on fancy camera moves or slight-of-hand to tell this story of a man who is kidnapped from his life of freedom in New York state while on a trip to Washington, DC in 1841 and sold into a life of slavery in Louisiana. We see his miserable existence at the hands of two masters-one who treats him decently yet still as a slave (Benedict Cumberbatch, who was in how many films last year?) and one who never lets him forget his place yet almost seems to define the phrase passive/aggressive (Fassbinder, whom I think would have won the Oscar had not Jared Leto been just a bit better in his role) in how he treats him and the other slaves-adultery with his most productive female slave (Nyong'o-almost painfully good), dragging them out in the middle of the night to dance and perform, being sent to the store but being suspicious of a slave that might have the ability to read and write...

There are two scenes in this film that leave you on the edge of your seat-Fassbinder takes Ejiofor for a walk one night and questions him about a possible letter that was to be sent to a friend, and Ejiofor having to convince/lie to his master's face that he did no such thing, and the man who made this accusation (a white man working off a debt in whom he had confided and even given money he had earned playing music at a party) was only doing so to gain employment as an overseer-no cutaways to close-ups, all done in one shot-beautiful; and the other after Nyong'o has returned from another plantation to an enraged Fassbinder who thinks she has run off-his wife (Sarah Paulson, playing one of the most loathsome characters I have seen onscreen in a long time) demands that the girl be beaten and after Fassbinder has administered a number of lashes orders Ejiofor to continue the beating, and when he feels the lashes are not harsh enough for his liking threatens to kill the slave unless he does as he is told-we see most of the punishment so that we are facing the lasher, with the spray coming from each lashing going from clear to red, with the last few blows being seen in POV shots that really show what damage was done. I think I can see why many who were present for Academy screenings said that people either left or the film would end with silence from the audience.

I even thought that Hans Zimmer's score was one of his more melodic and less "aural wallpaper" than usual and I can honestly say that there was nary a false note in any aspect of this film. My only tiny quibble would have been an idea as to how much time had passed from section to section-Solomon does not appear to age during his twelve years of captivity, and

SPOILER ALERT...SPOILER ALERT!!

aside from seeing his children all grown up and even with one grandchild it does not feel like all that time has really passed.

Having seen all but AMERICAN HUSTLE, PHILOMENA, HER and THE WOLF OF WALL STREET of the films that were nominated for Best Picture this year, it will be hard for me to disagree with the Academy's choice this year, and that rarely happens. I just hope that this film is seen by young people and it is impressed upon them that THIS is the real reason the American Civil War was fought-to uphold the American ideal that everyone here deserves to be free.

Watchmen (the directors cut)

Gosh...I don't know where to begin, except to say this is one of the worst films I've ever seen. From top to bottom it is thoroughly senseless, twisted, pretentious and disgusting.

I wish I could describe the story, but the isn't much of one. The screenplay is a convoluted mess, bogged-down in pointless tangents and irrelevant subplots, and the whole movie (all three hours of it) plays like a rough "work in progress" with barely any narrative architecture.

There's not a single likable character either. The "heroes" haven't the redeeming qualities to make them heroes, and yet they are far too two-dimensional to be antiheroes. They're just a bunch of narcissistic losers running around in stupid-looking costumes -- except in the case of Billy Crudup's "Dr. Manhattan", who walks around with no costume, and his blue CGI willy on display for everyone to see.

The notion that superheroes would (in a the real world) probably come to be regarded as vigilantes and pariahs is an interesting one, but this concept was far-better examined in the more satirical (and more entertaining) The Incredibles.

For the most part Watchman is an endless barrage of revolting sequences where people do heinous things to other people -- we have a rape scene, a man's arms severed by a power saw, a man murdered by repeated blows to his skull with a meat cleaver and (my favorite) two dogs fighting over the severed leg of a dead little girl -- all depicted with Zack Snyder's typically explicit candor and ravenous appetite for carnage.

Visually the film has nothing new to offer, its style merely a shallow pastiche of a lot of other things. Formulaic CGI effects pervade the film (of course this afflicts most genre movie these days) while Snyder repurposes images from many other movies -- Dr. Stranglove's war room, Altered States' hallucinations, Blade Runner's rainy nocturnal streets, while Dr. Manhattan says farewell to his love amidst the Decker/Ilya "meld effect" from Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

The use of music is also utterly laughable. Songs by Nat King Cole, Bob Dylan, Simon & Garfunkle etc. are troweled into the film indiscriminately, with absolutely no rhyme nor reason to how they relate to the story. Tyler Bates' score consists of the usual unspecific "mood tones" which do little other than fill the silence. The attempt to invest the finale with "poignance" by tracking it with Mozart's Requiem is contrived and heavy-handed. Ironically, despite my dislike of Philip Glass' work, I found the use of his Pruit Igoe and Prophecies the only effective music in the film.

And sadly, despite Watchmen's surpassingly invincible idiocy, the film hardly even gives us any unintentional laughs (though I did chortle a bit when that one character proclaims "What happened the the American dream?" ).

The only compliment I can give this film is that the actors are mostly excellent, and do an do a terrific job, despite being saddled with a script that makes it next to impossible for any of the characters to be sympathetic.

I'm so tired of these "graphic novels" and their shallow, pseudo-intellectual "observations" about society, and the way they pander to angry, sexually frustrated teenage nerds. In the case of Watchmen, the dour tone of the source material is compounded by Zack Snyder, who clearly revels in misogyny, and relishes bloodletting for its own sake.

Terry Gilliam reportedly bowed-out of directing Watchmen because he considered the story unfilmable -- and he may have been right. However, I do think it paring this vague and incoherent narrative down to about 90 minutes and excising the more sickening elements (and giving Billy Crudup a CGI jockstrap) might possibly have resulted in something almost watchable. But as it stands, this movie made me wretch. It was a useless, nihilistic, sadomasochistic waste of time.

Paul you took the words right out of my mouth!

I mentioned many of the same things as you. Though in hindsight I think 2 stars on my part was generous:

http://www.andyfilm.com/7-14-09.html

KING OF THE HILL

8.5/10

While director Steven Soderbergh’s films often feel cool and clinical instead of emotionally involving, his third picture – KING OF THE HILL – remains one of his most satisfying on a number of levels, particularly for its wide spectrum of human emotion.

kinghillSoderbergh’s movie is an adaptation of A.E. Hotchner’s memoir of growing up in Depression-era St. Louis. Young Aaron (a tremendous performance by Jesse Bradford) excels in school while he struggles to keep his fragile family dynamic together: his salesman father (Jeroen Krabbe) is constantly on the move, while his tuberculosis-stricken mother (Lisa Eichhorn) returns to a sanatorium for treatment. Aaron relays to his schoolmates (including a young Katherine Heigl) a number of fanciful stories explaining his parents’ whereabouts, and then hustles his way into a number of episodic adventures once he’s left to fend for himself during a particularly hot, humid Midwestern summer.

Though Soderbergh is hard on “King of the Hill” – claiming in a Criterion interview that he thinks the movie is too pretty and that it’d be “grittier” if he produced it today – the truth is that this picture is one of his best. Aaron’s survival story is both poignant, gripping and beautifully shot by Elliott Davis in a widescreen aspect ratio afforded by the budget-conscious choice to film in Super 35. The movie bounces from Aaron’s time in the classroom to his fractured family life, with the young teen attempting to make money at any opportunity in order to buy food (dinner otherwise is a soup special made with water and ketchup). The various characters in the hotel are memorably portrayed by the likes of Spalding Gray, Elizabeth McGovern, Amber Benson and especially Adrien Brody in one of his earliest roles as a similarly resourceful young man trying to survive in a difficult time. He acts as a surrogate brother after Aaron’s own sibling is sent away because his family can no longer afford to feed him.

“King of the Hill” received a number of enthusiastic reviews when it opened in 1993 but never made an impression at the box-office and quickly faded from public view. To date, the movie has never even received a DVD release, making this Criterion Collection Blu-Ray/DVD combo pack a most overdue package for its fans. The 1080p AVC encoded transfer is quite good and the DTS MA 5.1 audio offers a fine stage for Cliff Martinez’s effective, restrained score. Extras include an interview with the director and the 93-year-old Hotchner, who looks remarkably spry for his age and relays his thoughts on his childhood as well as Soderbergh’s picture. A visual essay on Soderbergh’s approach to narrative filmmaking is included, as is Soderbergh’s 1995 follow-up feature, “The Underneath.” This contemporary remake of the ‘40s film noir “Criss Cross” received mixed reaction from critics – and Soderbergh completely trashes it in a new interview on the movie here – but it makes for an interesting inclusion if nothing else, starring Peter Gallagher, Allison Elliot, William Fichtner and Elisabeth Shue in a warm-up – of sorts – for Soderbergh’s far superior 1998 hit “Out of Sight.” The 1080p transfer is solid and the 5.1 Dolby Digital audio serves the story well.

“King of the Hill” is an odd film considering Soderbergh’s filmography as a whole, but it’s an unquestionably underrated picture that ranks as some of his best work.

THE WOLF OF WALL STREET
5/10

I’m not sure I’ve ever watched a film so long that yielded so little.

Martin Scorsese’s bombastic, endless film about the life of Wall Street trader Jordan Belfort plays like a virtual rough draft – a surprisingly repetitive and soulless rehash of “Goodfellas,” substituting the mob and violence with Wall Street and drugs, but otherwise adhering to the same basic structure of the director’s far superior 1990 classic. Belfort (a showy, glib performance from Leonardo DiCaprio) is a brash young hot shot who takes advantage of the “Greed is Good” ‘80s with its associated decadence and Wall Street’s boom and bust cycles, working the system over and taking advantage of many a gullible buyer. He’s rough with his women, loose with his morals, and high on both life and drugs – indulging in the era’s excesses from private yachts to fast cars and showing an allegiance only to his friends, including his business partner (played by Jonah Hill in an amusing turn that nevertheless, much like the film’s lead performance, didn’t seem to be worthy of an Oscar nomination).

“The Wolf of Wall Street” is sporadically invigorating but ultimately detached and exhausting – making you wonder what, if any, film editing actually took place on this picture. There’s one party sequence, one snort of cocaine, one sexual liaison after another –but lost in the debauchery is any sort of human interest or narrative development. Belfort is a louse, no doubt, but any level of sympathy you might’ve had for him goes out the window with Scorsese spending so much time on the sordid behavior of the investors that I couldn’t wait for the cocky protagonist to get his comeuppance. Rob Reiner as Belfort’s father generates a few laughs, and the stunning Margot Robbie makes a big splash (clothes on and off) as the investor’s second wife, but there’s not nearly enough dramatic stakes to make you care. One of the story’s most compelling elements – with Kyle Chandler playing the FBI agent who eventually takes Belfort down – is given surprisingly short-shrift, here treated less as the dramatic development it should’ve than one more episode in Belfort’s fall from the 1%.

Scorsese apparently rushed the film through post-production to meet a Christmas release and the signs of the movie having not been satisfactorily completed are obvious – there’s incredibly poor ADR looping, digital effects backdrops that often look as believable as rear projection on a ‘40s backlot, and continuity errors that are noticeable throughout. More significant, however, than the technical problems is that there’s no reason at all why a good 30-45 minutes couldn’t have been trimmed – as superficial as the picture is (guess what folks – money doesn’t buy happiness!), at least the movie would’ve been more entertaining in a leaner, more focused format. In the end, this “Wolf” comes off as a self-indulgent work-in-progress in dire need of pruning.

Paramount brings “The Wolf of Wall Street” to Blu-Ray next week in a 1080p transfer. While the widescreen lensing of Rodrigo Prieto is superb, HD only heightens the movie’s sloppy technical issues (there’s even a jarring digital transition when DiCaprio’s car drives up to a mini-mall; clearly he wasn’t driving it, as the frame “shifts” once he steps out). The 5.1 DTS MA audio is expertly mixed, at least, with just one fluffy featurette, a DVD and digital copy rounding out the package.

-- Andy, I've intentionally refrained from reading your review until posting my own --

Wolf of Wall Street

Not a pleasant film at all, but an excellent one.

Granted, at times it almost seems like a remake of GoodFellas -- it is likewise the story of a reckless (and less-than-law-abiding) young man's rise to power and wealth -- and the inevitable excesses (and eventual ruin) that come with it. Moreover the style of the film is very reminiscent of GoodFellas, being adrenally-paced (it doesn't feel like a three-hour movie) and narration-driven. Leonardo DeCapprio is excellent in the lead, but at times he almost seems to be doing a Ray Liotta impression (the first appearance of his voice on the narration track sounded almost exactly like Liotta's in Goodfellas). The banter between DeCapprio and Jonah Hill also has a distinctly Liotta/Joe Pesci vibe to it sometimes (even Hill's performance is reminiscent of Pesci in Goodfellas). There is even a character who wears a wig (ala Morrie).

But the performances are nevertheless superb, and every actor outstanding. DeCapprio is at the top of his game, and Australian actress Margot Robbie is perfectly convincing as a well-healed (but trampy) Brooklyn girl (and probably has a promising career ahead of her). Jonah Hill is at once funny and makes your skin crawl. The supporting cast is also terrific, with Matthew McConaughey, Joanna Lumley, Jean Dujardin and Rob Reiner in small (but memorable) appearances.

Wolf of Wall Street is also very funny at times. And one scene in particular -- where the drugged-out DeCapprio is inspired to pull himself together in order to save Hill from choking to death -- had me in hysterics!

To be sure, there are some very unpleasant scenes (a call girl lighting a candle stuck in DeCapprio's bum, a quick glimpse of Hill's erect sausage and Margot Robbie walking in on a gay orgy!) but they're very brief, and honestly, I was expecting a more explicit film based on some of the reviews I'd read. Nudity is certainly abundant, but Scorsese doesn't linger voyeuristically on it, and frankly, this film was nowhere near as offensive and tasteless to me as a lot of other movies I could name (like Watchmen for instance).

It's sacrilege for a cinephile to admit, but while I admire him, I've never been the biggest fan of Martin Scorsese's work. I think GoodFellas is great, and enjoyed The King of Comedy, but I disliked The Last Temptation of Christ, Cape Fear and Age of Innocence, and I hated The Departed. I thought Mean Streets had some excellent sequences, but no story to speak of. (I still have never seen Raging Bull or Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore).

But Wolf of Wall Street really impressed me, and is some of the best work of this director that I've seen. It is a compelling and thoroughly caustic depiction of greed, materialism and excess, and I was completely hooked from start to finish.

Admittedly, watching this film does feel a bit like gazing at a road accident -- you know you should avert your eyes...but you just can't!

Here we go Andy...

Nice 'stache, Gene.

Count me in the "loved it" column for Wolf Of Wall Street, where the sheer, exhaustive excess was kind of the point, rubbing the audience's face in egregious consumption, was to showcase how the 1% squandered away the country economy. I never felt the three hours going by as I watched, as Scorsese's filmmaking was thrillingly alive at all times, and the performances were terrific across the board.

Haha!

Well, I totally disagree with you guys.

One huge problem for me is that I didn't buy DiCaprio at all -- thought actually it was one of his most obvious, transparent performances. His whole persona looked like he was trying to imitate Nicholson or even Ray Liotta. The "emotional outbursts" were hysterical "ACTING!", missing only an appearance by Jon Lovitz. And very much like a re-run of GOODFELLAS, even down to Liotta and Bracco's shouting matches. I guess if I believed DiCaprio, he would've hooked me in -- but like a little boy playing dress up, I thought he was glib and empty, and overly mannered. Didn't buy him for a second.

And the running time? As they said in EW, "without film editors, we'd have THE WOLF OF WALL STREET." I also can't believe MJ, who goes NUTTY over every movie a minute over 2 hours (even films that are deservedly long), actually thought this picture "flew by"? Seriously? I can't think of another film that played its cards so quickly and had nowhere else to go. Every theme in this movie is stated in the first 10 minutes and repeated for the next 170. There is no subtext to the film, nothing beneath its glossiness. It is as superficial as the lead character it portrays.

I did find some of it funny, and portions of it exciting, but utterly buried in a repetitious and empty movie. Tell me -- at what point was I supposed to care about what was going on? That's where the film utterly failed. So I was stuck watching DiCaprio play Ray Liotta and the movie just put GOODFELLAS in a blender and regurgitate its themes and visual style. I couldn't wait for it to end.

I will say as raunchy as the film was, that alone didn't bother me that much. I agree Paul that Scorsese didn't linger on the truly disgusting moments per se -- but it had so much of the same thing (look, another party where people throw up, have sex and snort coke!), it quickly lost me in terms of being a dramatically engaging experience. He should've edited this picture down, and likely never had the chance to do so. The technical problems (one or two times it sounded like an entirely DIFFERENT ACTOR was ADR'ing a character on-screen -- like when the gay butler gets interrogated) confirm to me this movie was rushed out and needed refinement in the editing room...though even then, I still wouldn't have bought DiCaprio's performance.

Thumbs down!