The Wolf of Wall Street

So big money, huh? Yeah, it scares the hell out of me mostly because the only time we ever hear about Wall Street and huge international corporations is when they're getting taken down for all sorts of tax frauds, insider trading and stock manipulation. How can the rich get richer basically. Like politics, right?!? Yeah, the world's a scary place. Nowhere is that more evident than in director Martin Scorsese's latest, 2013's The Wolf of Wall Street.

Arriving on Wall Street in 1987, Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a young, ambitious and even naive stock broker looking to make a career for himself. He also has horrific timing. Within months of becoming a full-time broker, Jordan is out of work as quick as he had it, a result of Black Monday. Looking for work, Jordan ends up working in a New Jersey boiler room selling penny stocks. The money is there, his aggressive selling style winning over customer after customer. It's not enough though. Jordan wants more. He needs more. He gets it his own way, starting his own start-up scam selling stocks with the very official sounding name, Stratton Oakmont, and a new right-hand man, Donnie Azoff (Jonah Hill), goes to work. He gets an office, gets some salesmen, teaches them the selling techniques, and it works....a lot. Money starts flowing in, ridiculous amounts of money, and Jordan's empire grows. Millions of dollars, a luxurious, self-indulgent life of sex, drugs, and everything in between, everything is attainable. Has Jordan's company gotten too big though?

You know what's the most terrifying thing to take away from this movie? It happened. This all happened. Read about the real-life Jordan Belfort HERE and know that as ridiculously over the top, as self-indulgent, as ludicrous as the movie is, IT HAPPENED. Belfort's story also served as the inspiration for 2000's Boiler Room. 'Wolf' doesn't delve in too much to the gory financial details, trying to introduce what's going on and moving on to the life and empire Belfort has created for himself. Not surprisingly, it has picked up some Oscar buzz, garnering nominations for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor, picking up five overall. It's a loaded Academy Awards so it will definitely be interesting to see what comes of it all.

What's the end result here? A terrifying, truly funny, unsettling, amazingly entertaining story. Scorsese's style is there at all times. DiCaprio's narration -- mostly heard over the action, at times seen as Jordan addresses the camera -- is almost non-stop, keeping things going, explaining all the new developments that the ever-crooked Stratton Oakmont is up to. 'Wolf' clocks in at a robust 179 minutes (that's almost 3 full hours for you non-math fans like me), the script from Terence Winter covering a ton of ground and a lot of years, but it never feels rushed. If you didn't know this was real, you'd think it was a drugged-up fantasy, a dream-like trip into a bizarre nightmare. There isn't one linear story, no one plot, just an ever-building doomsday scenario we all know is coming. The first hour is the rise to power, the second the stay at the top, and the third the inevitable and crushing downfall. Replacing mobsters with Wall Street brokers, 'Wolf' did remind me of Scorsese's Goodfellas at times in terms of that rise to power story arc.

As the appointed Wolf of Wall Street (earning the nickname 'Wolfie'), DiCaprio picked up another Best Actor nomination, his third Best actor and fourth overall (he remains winless), for his part here. It's a part that is hard to look away from. It is a trainwreck, and we're just waiting for the train to wreck. DiCaprio's performance is a gem as we watch Jordan's rise to power and inevitable fall from grace. He learns the ins-and-outs of the stock market from a veteran broker, John Hanna (Matthew McConaughey, a truly scene-stealing part, and he's on-screen about 10 minutes, maybe), and from there, Jordan is on his way. It's ego. It's pride. It's vanity. It is having everything the world can offer. His life becomes a cliche of the rich and famous as he visits prostitutes on a regular basis, does ridiculous amounts of drugs, becomes addicted to quaaludes, and commits himself to a life he loves and embraces, a life that will lead to his doom. From the narration to the decadence, DiCaprio brings this scumbag to life. It's not a likable character. Jordan is a deplorable individual, but he's epically, grandly good at his profession. Will DiCaprio win the Oscar? I don't know considering the opponents -- Dern, McConaughey, Bale, Ejiofor -- but he more than deserves that nomination. 

DiCaprio isn't alone though, 'Wolf' featuring an impressive list of performances. Some are like McConaughey, quick, effective and lasting in terms of influence, while others figure more prominently, like Jonah Hill's Best Supporting Actor nominated part as Donnie. It's hard to put this character into words, a motor-mouth, a troublemaker, a loyal right-hand man, and just as greedy as Jordan, especially when the money starts to pile up (quite literally). Another really strong part goes to relative unknown (but not for too much longer) Margot Robbie as Naomi, Jordan's second wife, a former model and the definition of a trophy wife....who becomes much more. Adding to the scene-stealing list (how many such parts can a movie have?) is Rob Reiner as Jordan's Dad, helping his son with the business but quite aware where his son is heading. The link for these three parts -- and really the entire cast -- is the chemistry. As ridiculously goofy and off the wall as the story can be at times, it's at least somewhat grounded because of the chemistry, the believable qualities.

Also look for Kyle Chandler as Denham, the FBI agent leading the case against Jordan, Jon Favreau as Riskin, the security officer trying to help Jordan around the S.E.C. sanctions, Jean Dujardin as Saurel, the helpful Swiss banker, and Jon Bernthal, P.J. Byrne, Kenneth Choi, Brian Sacca, and Henry Zebrowski as Jordan's crew of "vice presidents" who become his inner circle. Even look for actor/director Spike Jonze in a small, effective part.

I have a concept of Best Picture nominations as being almost exclusively dramatic. This year's nominations certainly back up that assumption, from 12 Years a Slave to Captain Phillips, Nebraska to Dallas Buyers Club (American Hustle obviously had some laughs too). So what to take away from 'Wolf'? It is funny, ridiculously funny. This isn't physical humor laughs. These are scenes so far out of the ordinary that their unique qualities are funny just because. These are scenes played straight that produce countless laughs. My personal favorite? Jordan and Donnie overdo it on some old quaaludes (Lemmon 714) thinking they've lost their potency. Well...they didn't. The extended scene as both try to overcome some heavy duty effects are hilarious. I was crying. 'Wolf' has plenty of these moments, from analyzing a contract of a little person who agrees to be used as a throwing dart to McConaughey's Hannah's monologue about how to truly become a successful stock broker. It's incredibly dark humor, often uncomfortable, but these were genuine laughs.

Is there a complaint here? Yeah, the length of the movie. It never drags but the almost three-hour movie.....yeah, it felt as I was walking out that I'd been there three or four days. I don't know what you cut, but just be known it's a long movie. Mostly though, it's really good. It's the general negative outlook on, well, everything. Lost in the shuffle of the drama and debauchery is such a negative tone and outlook on life. Everyone is out for themselves, and no one really cares who gets caught in the wake. A trip of a movie full of drug use, nudity (some scenes far more graphic than others), truly interesting characters, lots of illegal stock and Wall Street activity, style to burn, and just a treat to watch. Scorsese does it again. I can't wait to see what, if any, awards it takes home at next month's Oscars.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013): *** 1/2 /****

The Monuments Men

I'm weird when it comes to movies. When I catch wind of a film in production, of an actor being attached to a project, stumbling across a trailer, I look forward to said movie like a crazy person. We're talking kid on Christmas Eve excited. Over the years, I've looked forwarded to The Alamo, Skyfall, Casino Royale, the Dark Knight series, the Fast and Furious movies, and most recently released in theaters, 2014's The Monuments Men. Where does it fall among that list? Read on.

It's mid-1943 and the tide of World War II is quickly turning to the Allies, the Axis retreating on almost all fronts. An American officer, Frank Stokes (George Clooney), with an art background is proposing a plan to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt as the tide turns, presenting an idea for a small squad of specialists and experts in art, architecture and history and dropping them into the war zone in France. Their goal is simple, try and save as much famous and historical art, statues, structures and buildings across Europe. Germany, the Third Reich and the Nazis -- led by Hitler and Goring -- have been stealing and stockpiling priceless pieces of art for years, more than that stealing hundreds and thousands of years of history and culture. Stokes gets his right-hand man, James Granger (Matt Damon), and goes to work assembling his small team. The war is definitely turning though, the Germany army retreating all along the front. Countless pieces of art, treasures and items of historical significance are at risk, the Germans having received an order from Hitler to destroy everything they can.

This story is a prime example of how powerful history can be. There are countless stories out there just waiting to be told. This WWII story with Clooney directing (and co-writing the script with Grant Heslov) is based off a true story and the book of the same name (check it out HERE by author Robert M. Edsel). The fact that this really happened -- the Germans hoarding history's treasures, the Allied effort to recover said treasures -- is pretty crazy in itself, a hugely interesting and entertaining premise. I loved the book, a window into a chapter of WWII that was almost completely forgotten by history until the last 20 years or so. It was fascinating and terrifying all at once, unlikely heroes in an unlikely situation. I was worried then when Clooney's film was pushed back from an original December 2013 release to a February 2014 release. Should I have been worried?

Unfortunately, yes. It's a good movie that entertained me. The truth is though with the story at hand, the real-life incidents, the flesh and blood people, it could have been a classic. A true classic, and it isn't. The positives are obvious. There is a throwback feel to the story reminiscent of so many good 1960s World War II movies. Clooney clearly has a ton of respect for his subject matter and rightfully so. What these Monuments Men accomplished in a live war zone is remarkable, and yes, there were casualties. For a cliffsnotes version of what the force/organization accomplished, read HERE. This is a movie interested in really illuminating what these men accomplished. They were soldiers, if not the classic idea of what a soldier is. The movie is gorgeous, filming on location in Germany adds a perfect sense of authenticity to the story. The score from Alexandre Desplat is okay, nothing too memorable, a little too adoring at times. There's a lot going for it but.....

There's also a lot of negative to mention. A couple hours after watching 'Monuments,' it's hard exactly to say why. The task in transitioning Edsel's book to a manageable film is daunting. We're talking almost double-digit characters traversing across Europe over a year-plus. The result in Clooney's 118-minute long film? A generally disjointed feel with no real unifying link to the characters and set pieces. Episodic is a more than apt description, one episode, one bit or routine bouncing to another as quick as it arrived. The early portions are rushed, characters introduced far too quickly. The middle portions drag as if the script doesn't know exactly how to get to where it wants to go. The finale definitely is the saving grace, the Monuments Men traveling deep into Germany to rescue extraordinary amounts of art. It's disappointing because I expected so much more. The drama is good but not great, wandering too much aimlessly, and most of the attempts at wry, subtle humor fall short.

The movie's savior and strongest attribute is the cast that almost makes up for the disappointing script. If Clooney is attached to a project, it instantly has cache for me. He's good, not great, leading the ensemble as Lt. Frank Stokes (based on George Stout), the creator of the Monuments Men. Damon has the more scene-stealing part as James Granger (based on James Rorimer), the art director at the Metropolitan Museum in NYC. His subplot with Claire Simone (Cate Blanchett), a volunteer who survived years in Paris in efforts to protect invaluable pieces of art, is a cool departure from the story, including a great scene where Claire (based on Rose Valland) reveals a huge secret to Granger. The rest of the Monument Men include Campbell (Bill Murray), an architect, Garfield (John Goodman), a sculptor, Clermont (Jean Dujardin), a French artist, Savitz (Bob Balaban), an art expert of sorts, Jeffries (Hugh Bonneville), a disgraced Englishman, and Epstein (Dimitri Leonidas), a young soldier who grew up in Poland, now working as the group's translator.

While the formula is tweaked, the premise here at its heart is a 'men-on-a-mission' movie, Clooney's Stokes assembling a small group of specialists to help pull off an impossible mission. The formula is rushed too much to the point I never really felt I knew any of the characters. I felt like we were supposed to root for them because it was Bill Murray, because it was John Goodman, not because we get to learn anything about them as individuals. Like so much of portions of the movie, I came away disappointed with the characterization. The acting is uniformly good but cold for lack of a better description. Some parts work very well, especially Goodman and Dujardin teaming up as the group is split up to cover more ground. Murray and Balaban are the odd couple, almost constantly arguing, but overall, it's just more wasted potential.

I'm wavering here. This movie seemed like a gimme for me, a sure thing review at 3.5 or 4 stars, but it wasn't. Some moments work perfectly, like a Christmas montage as we see the war starting to wear on all the Monuments Men, a message from Murray's daughter playing on a phonograph. A late interrogation between Clooney's Stokes and an SS officer is foreboding and subtle at the same time. the last 30-40 minutes pick up the momentum, providing the movie's strongest moments. Getting there though can be a trial at times. Most of the issues can be chalked up to the script that falls short in so many ways. A disappointingly average film that should have been so, so much better.

The Monuments Men (2014): ** 1/2 /****