Horrid movie
-
SxxxxxHxH — 10 years ago(March 13, 2016 01:03 PM)
to posters that THOUGHT DA MOVIE WAS "HORRID" & left brief comments
Are you SO bored that you felt the urge to come leave a comment like that.
It appears you simply can't find yourself to enjoy anything with your time, Lol**
.
teheheheeheeeeee
You randoms individuals need to find ways to better spend your time.
And the ones who at least spend a moment to have REASON:
louiseculmer~ I apologize the pacing of the film bored you or detracted from your watching experience but that does not make it too long for the story it tells.
I also understand different viewers can tolerate different amounts of sexual or drug related content before it simply annoys or causes a lack of interest. This may have had a lot to do with you completely losing interest in the characters and giving you the thought that you find it "dull".
I am sorry you could not have gotten on board with the film; great that you gave it a chance after having watched the films trailer, reading the synopsis and understanding the type of film it was ultimately. At least I hope you did all three of those things.
I guess I can get on board with reading and posting among this "thread" because alas it has entertained me and occupied my time much like the movie itself. -
SxxxxxHxH — 10 years ago(March 14, 2016 04:37 AM)
There has got to be at least one movie you have enjoyed that others might have claimed was too long for its "very" slight story That is very subjective.
You do know this movie covers a span of him starting in wallstreet, going through a first marriage, his early years with penny stocks, his rise to the top, his "fall" to the bottom-getting investigated/caught ect.
I don't think you understand how much happened if you want to come back and reinforce and re-state that "OPINION".
A lot of modern films are too short in my opinion, and that is my honest opinion if you can understand my point for mentioning such.
Gone With the Wind could've been a two hour film; I enjoyed this one.
Titanic felt it was ABOUT TWO HOURS longer than it should be (In my opinion) for the very SLIGHT story it told.
I'd love to try and find a soft spot that you can really disagree with considering you feel it necessary to act like it is fact that this film was too long IT HAS A VERY HIGH RATING ON THIS SITE, was very well reviewed ect ect.
Please don't touch on this point again and bring something new to this thread if you wish to continue posting, that second post was terribly irrelevant.
Edit: Oh and my initial post about your thoughts on the movie was considerably more disrespectful until I edit'd it down, I no longer have that respect for you. -
justanicknamed — 10 years ago(March 14, 2016 10:18 AM)
A lot of modern films are too short in my opinion,
I agree with you on this. Too many people have ADHD attention spans and can't handle sitting and watching a movie which is more than 2 hours long. Hell, I don't know how many people can't even sit through a movie which is shorter than 2 hours long. I get it if you have to pee, but how does that take 5 minutes to accomplish?
There are so many movies out there which would be masterpieces if the audience could actually concentrate for 3 hours. -
snepts — 9 years ago(January 29, 2017 09:22 PM)
I just saw WOWS, and I like Scorsese a lot. The movie was entertaining in it's energy, but I did find the reliance on the sex and drugs scenes after a while seemed gratuitous.
We certainly can get the impression Leo is living a debauched life w/o sensationalizing it repeatedly. I kept wondering when the tone of the film would take a turn for a suspenseful "what happens now?" Instead it just seemed to rely on more graphic sex and drug use. But I don't hate the film, not at all. It just doesn't live me feeling like I learned anything interesting.
I'm not a woman much less Deanna Durbin, but the old-time glam-shot appeals to me. -
-
The_Shawshank_Inception — 9 years ago(April 18, 2016 05:08 PM)
Well, it's a biopic, and pretty realistic. I mean, biopics do tend to tell the truth. There is obviously something to get out of it, being that it is a film based on Jordan Belfort's memoir, directed by possibly the greatest biographical film director in history. If you don't like the story, why are you watching it? I thought it was a GREAT movie, even with all the sex.
-
kmags84 — 9 years ago(April 18, 2016 09:36 PM)
Scorsese is pretty much the only Director that can make a Great Biopic. I usually hate them. Scorsese has always managed to use True Stories to tell ANOTHER Story, while sticking to the narrative laid out by the Source. That's what makes his Biopics so great. Do you need to know who Henry Hill was to love Goodfellas? Nope, he's just a Plot Device. Same goes for Casino or WOWS We are being shown a Certain World. We are shown that World without a Moral Highground or Political Narrative(Oliver Stone ring a bell?) and it ultimately leads to a Better Film IMO. Why make a Judgement when it's not needed? We can do that on our own.
-
Mosquitha — 9 years ago(April 21, 2016 01:44 AM)
I did not like it either, it was structured too much like the Goodfellas, minus the cool parts Basically it goes: look we are so smart we made so much money, money money money, then from the money we get corrupted, oh yes sex drugs sex drugs, and then we fail big time, touch rock bottom, and oh well It' s a formula basically. You can apply it to so many people and make a film out of them like this one.
Sex scenes weren' t that good either,