Existimatum

★★★★¼

4.25 stars for Xan Brooks’s 652‑word review of “The Wolf of Wall Street” on Guardian [UK]

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/dec/17/the-wolf-of-wall-street-first-look-review

Xan Brooks The Wolf of Wall Street frankly had me and all lovers of language as its own art form at ‘bespoke’----he can be my, our wing man anytime, especially when it comes to filmdom versus film, dumb.

Scrupulously objective in implying that this work’s helmer may have been a tad self-referential to a fault, Brooks Wolf is, then, to Scorcese what Lord Levin’s crown inquiry into the British tabloid press’s unlawful arrogance was to Rupert Murdoch.  

And, as such, Brooks judiciously---even judgmentally---consigns this film’s ‘just reporting the news of a true happening with human interest’ surface to the realm of anthem to one’s own artfulness.  

Quoting from a marital squabble betwixt the central crook in this portrayal of ‘truth’, Brooks leisurely, indeed, laser-like, points up the over-the-top-ness of it both the truth and its portrayal: “It’s a Greek tragedy!”

Summoning a memorable true moment from American politics---truthfully described by Hollywood types as a realm of ugly actors---the temptation proves too great to resist recalling the late Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas drolly informing one Dan Quayle (Bentsen likely saw it as Quail—and the latter wouldn’t have objected) that Bentsen had known Jack Kennedy, a friend of his, and, well, that Quail was just quail.

Think of Brooks, then, as Bentsen, advising Scorcese that his Wolf is no Taxi Driver, Goodfellas or Raging Bull.  It might simply be added that, insofar as its protagonist and possibly its content goes, it might just be…. raging bull.

Buy Tickets: fandango.com/

Original Post: e.xst.ma/tm/2MX9

More Reviews: e.xst.ma/t/m/771305721

Rotten Tomatoes: rottentomatoes.com/m/771305721

★★★¾☆

3.78 stars for Dana Stevens’s 861‑word review of “The Wolf of Wall Street” on Slate

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/movies/2013/12/scorsese_s_wolf_of_wall_street_starring_leonardo_dicaprio_reviewed.html

Dana Stevens takes a familiar tack in her approach to Scorsese’s biopic about the Caligula conman, Jordan Belfort in her review, “The Wolf of Wall Street.” That is, her open suggests as much, decrying the level of carnal excess in the drug fueled escapades of the film’s anti-hero.

You might be saying to yourself, “This is Dana Stevens, resident critic for the respected mag Slate.  No way she’s gone down the road of lesser arbiters and condemned the film because of it’s content.”

Thankfully, your instincts serve you well. Stevens rights the ship almost immediately, providing much needed clarification—“Mind you, this is not to suggest that Belfort’s amorality is in itself a fault of The Wolf of Wall Street.” Whew.  

Instead, Stevens argues that the “story’s relentless, unvarying rhythm” overestimates “the audience’s ability or desire to watch Leo misbehave.” It’s a fine line but an important distinction.  

However, though she narrowly escapes the aforementioned pitfall, she harps on its across-the-hall neighbor for far too long and the piece becomes a one note song. DiCaprio’s performance isn’t mentioned. Neither is Jonah Hill’s. You’ll be subjected to paragraph after paragraph of repetitive (though well written, as always) critique that will wear you down and make you wish you’d read Ann Hornaday instead.

Buy Tickets: fandango.com/

Original Post: e.xst.ma/tm/8PGK

More Reviews: e.xst.ma/t/m/771305721

Rotten Tomatoes: rottentomatoes.com/m/771305721

★★★★¾

4.7 stars for Chris Nashawaty’s 501‑word review of “The Wolf of Wall Street” on Entertainment Weekly

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20483133_20721957,00.html

Chris Nashawaty continues to build his impressive portfolio of film reviews with his flashy and energetic “The Wolf of Wall Street (2013).” This critic has learned to balance smart insight with a pop culture everyman style that is as fresh as it is fun to read. And he is in strong form here.

Like the film (not to mention the film’s subject) of which he writes about, Nashawaty uses a full-steam-ahead approach in talking about a film covering a hectic and crazy time in recent history. Whether he’s calling the film a “new shoot-the-works epic” or talking about how the movie makes the audience “feel like they just snorted a Belushian mountain of blow,”  his no-holds-barred style grabs hold and pulls them along. It’s a tribute to his writing that the audience is more than willing to go along for the ride.

Like so many of this critic’s recent reviews, this one never talks down to the audience or try to impress with head-scratching analysis. This is not a critic who writes from Mount Olympus, but rather from right in the middle of the crowd, encouraging everyone to join in.

This review assumes that the audience is intelligent. But the reviewer also assumes that the audience shares his love for the work. It doesn’t matter whether it was a good film or a bad film or somewhere in between. The fun is in the process of finding out and talking about it.

The Wolf of Wall Street is  yet another triumph for this exciting reviewer. Don’t just read it—jump in with both feet. You’ll have an exhilarating good time.  

Buy Tickets: fandango.com/

Original Post: e.xst.ma/tm/8ZBR

More Reviews: e.xst.ma/t/m/771305721

Rotten Tomatoes: rottentomatoes.com/m/771305721

★★¾☆☆

2.7 stars for Marshall Fine’s 759‑word review of “The Wolf of Wall Street” on Hollywood & Fine

http://hollywoodandfine.com/the-wolf-of-wall-street-the-scum-also-rises/

In the world of film critique, titles have become an art form of their own and, while Marshall Fine isn’t necessarily known for having the wittiest, you have to admit that the subtitle for Marshall Fine’s review, “‘The Wolf of Wall Street’,” “The Scum Also Rises” is pure brilliance.  

What follows, though, is not some of Fine’s greatest work. This is primarily because he chooses to go down a road that many lesser critics have mistakenly gone down—he critiques the film on the basis that “18-24 year olds. . will mainly come away thinking: Whoa – how do I get a life like that? The money, the sex, the drugs – I want it all, even if it means screwing unsuspecting investors to get it.”

The premise he presents to back up this claim defies logic: “In “Goodfellas,” the bad guys killed people. In “Wolf,” the central characters kill people’s dreams.  That’s a much more insidious proposition.”

What? So, seeing our loved ones brutally murdered is preferable to seeing them financially ruined? It doesn’t hold water and it’s shockingly lazy, especially coming from such a respected figure.

Unlike the amateurs, though, he does manage to ignore moral disgust for a few brief moments to at least provide some other criticisms of the film, a fact that at least rescues some dignity.

Buy Tickets: fandango.com/

Original Post: e.xst.ma/tm/26ZN

More Reviews: e.xst.ma/t/m/771305721

Rotten Tomatoes: rottentomatoes.com/m/771305721

★★⅓☆☆

2.33 stars for Mara Reinstein’s 559‑word review of “The Wolf of Wall Street” on Us Weekly

http://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/wolf-of-wall-street-movie-review-martin-scorseses-exhilarating-exhaustive-ode-to-wall-street-debauchery-20132512

There is constructive criticism, there is tough love… and then there is plain old abuse. “Wolf of Wall Street Movie Review: Martin Scorsese’s “Exhilarating,” “Exhaustive” Ode to Wall Street Debauchery” from author Mara Reinstein is a perfect example of the latter—a trite, cynical, sucker punch of a tome that manages to generate at least as much disdain as the subject it’s based upon.

The venom can be felt the minute the unsuspecting reader sinks their teeth into this piece. It is abundantly clear the author either has no love for the subject, the task beset upon him, or both. The result is a bitter and unbridled rant that seems like it could go on forever if not for the limitations evidently set by his publisher. Fortunately, the reader is spared any further ugliness before it corrupts and jades their mind as well. It’s simply impossible to remain upbeat when reading this. No silver linings, no positive spin, indeed no light at the end of the tunnel to be seem. It’s simply a dismal report that is as depressing to witness as the topic evidently was for the author to research.

If there is some compliment to give, albeit begrudgingly, it is that the author does seem to possess some modicum of skill. He transitions smoothly from one nitpick to the next with the flow of someone casually conversing with his friends outside a theater lobby. One cannot help but feel this is, in fact, where the majority of this piece originates from. Unfortunately, a certain degree f tact is expected when conveying such a diatribe to the general public. That sorely needed filter was clearly left off here.

What could have potentially been an intelligently critical, but fair assessment, descends into a dark abyss of negativity and despair. Flee for your lives in the wake of “literature” such as this, lest it blacken your heart as the subject did the author.  

Buy Tickets: fandango.com/

Original Post: e.xst.ma/tm/2CDF

More Reviews: e.xst.ma/t/m/771305721

Rotten Tomatoes: rottentomatoes.com/m/771305721

★★¾☆☆

2.73 stars for Kimberly Gadette’s 919‑word review of “The Wolf of Wall Street” on Doddle

http://news.doddleme.com/news-room/movie-review-the-wolf-of-wall-street/

The subject is analyzed with the dilligence and thoroughness of a forensics expert in “Movie Review: The Wolf of Wall Street”, Kimberly Gadette’s latest offering.

One cannot deny the passion behind this piece. It is so palpable, it feels like a tinder box read to explode at any moment. All it needs is a spark. Sadly, that spark never comes, despite the author’s relentless attempts to generate an emotional response. It’s mystifying in that all the components of an engaging literary synopsis are here, and her conviction is steadfast and relentless. So by all logic, that should amount to a pivotal and inspiring, or at least controversial, literary assessment of the source material. But something is missing…

That something is the author’s ability to let go and allow her passions steer the piece. Instead, she tries too hard to be scholarly and embellishes her robust vocabulary to the point that it feels more like reading a physics book then an engaging analysis. Too much verbiage is coupled with a lingo that is too uppity for the taste of most readers, who will no doubt need to break out a dictionary at some point just to understand what the author is trying to say. Moreover, it borders on condescension at times, which is never beneficial when trying to appeal to a predominantly lower middle class audience.

To be sure, there is a consensus here. The author does have a take, albeit it is buried under a mountain of jargon. Unfortunately, the reader will likely resent having to shovel it out.

Buy Tickets: fandango.com/

Original Post: e.xst.ma/tm/9W8Z

More Reviews: e.xst.ma/t/m/771305721

Rotten Tomatoes: rottentomatoes.com/m/771305721

★★★½☆

3.5 stars for Tom Huddleston’s 347‑word review of “The Wolf of Wall Street” on Time Out

http://www.timeout.com/london/film/the-wolf-of-wall-street

Tom Huddleston’s “The Wolf of Wall Street” is a slight, quick hit review that doesn’t have enough time to fully develop the themes it starts.

This is not entirely fair. Just like film critique, reviewing reviews, by default, must involve some degree of subjectivism. Depending on your perspective (and tolerance for film reviews), Huddleston’s effort here may be exactly what you’re looking for. Wolf of Wall Street is the definition of drive thru reviewing: it gives readers the bare essentials—the cast, the plot, and a few words on its merits. For some, this may be enough.  

Those with a preference for harder-hitting, in depth reviewing, however, may feel a little cheated by the lack of intensive analysis.

The prose, for the brief time it graces you with its presence, is excellent. Huddleston knows how to make his writing sparkle and he has a special talent for transitions which lends the piece an effortless flow.  

The critiques are fairly cursory—this is all territory that’s been tread before, but if this is your first review of Scorsese’s new opus, it’ll cover most of the bases.

Huddleston is a prodigious talent, to be sure. It would just be nice to see him allowed to paint on a bigger canvas.

Buy Tickets: fandango.com/

Original Post: e.xst.ma/tm/64LP

More Reviews: e.xst.ma/t/m/771305721

Rotten Tomatoes: rottentomatoes.com/m/771305721

★★⅞☆☆

2.9 stars for Julian Roman’s 866‑word review of “The Wolf of Wall Street” on MovieWeb

http://www.movieweb.com/movie/the-wolf-of-wall-street/RE98jqrXz9Hzcf

Julian Roman’s “The Wolf of Wall Street: Review By Julian Roman” finds the critic in a chatty mood—this one clocks in at a good 300 words more than his usual efforts. So, the question is, does the excess here equate to a better outing for Mr. Roman.

The answer is a caveated “yes.” This piece is, inarguably, an improvement for the critic. For one, he’s managed to remain spoiler free throughout (a failing he’s been rightly criticized for in the past) and there are moments here that hint at a critic whose best work is ahead of him if he can clean up a few of the nagging issues that have kept his efforts in the realm of the amateur.  

Unfortunately, this one still suffers from some of the same obstacles as ever.  

The writing is inconsistent. There are times when Roman proves himself to be a competent scribe with a sentence that really shines, but, more often than not, the prose struggles to find a reliable tone and a surfeit of varietally impaired sentences drag the proceedings into the doldrums.

Many of the critiques work, but several ring hollow and end up feeling like filler. This is a step in the right direction, but it still looks like a long staircase from here.  

Buy Tickets: fandango.com/

Original Post: e.xst.ma/tm/2L6R

More Reviews: e.xst.ma/t/m/771305721

Rotten Tomatoes: rottentomatoes.com/m/771305721

★★★★¾

4.8 stars for Ann Hornaday’s 1101‑word review of “The Wolf of Wall Street” on Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/movies/the-wolf-of-wall-street-review-scorseses-latest-is-easy-to-admire-harder-to-love/2013/12/23/5c01c43a-6969-11e3-a0b9-249bbb34602c_story.html

Ann Hornaday’s “‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ review: Scorsese’s latest is easy to admire, harder to love” is easy to admire and even easier to love. In fact, it’s the best piece of film criticism this film has seen thus far and ranks as one of the most captivating creations of the year in its field.  

The writing is nothing short of breathtaking and Hornaday’s pen is as ferocious as it is nimble, a combo that sears the page with scorching critique and pitch perfect prose. Around every syntactical corner are hidden literary gems that make the soul jump for joy with such Caligulan pleasure, it almost feels like a hedonistic indulgence to read.  

This is not to say it’s self indulgent or that it overwhelms the critique with its own hyper literacy. No, the seminal writing is in service to some of the best critique you’ll ever witness.

While most critics have decried the movie’s moral excesses and stopped there, Hornaday does the real work of the critic and tells readers why both clearly and with an almost poetic cadence. Rarely does a review boast as much gorgeous depth as you’ll find here.

So stop reading this and go read Hornaday’s near perfect review.

Buy Tickets: fandango.com/

Original Post: e.xst.ma/tm/2CM9

More Reviews: e.xst.ma/t/m/771305721

Rotten Tomatoes: rottentomatoes.com/m/771305721

★★★☆☆

3.05 stars for Jim Judy’s 1256‑word review of “The Wolf of Wall Street” on Screen It!

http://www.screenit.com/ourtake/2013/the_wolf_of_wall_street.html

Jim Judy’s review of “The Wolf of Wall Street” takes a long time to say not terribly much.

Indeed, he’d do well to take the advice he offers director Martin Scorsese concerning his film, i. e. Judy should trim his review and get to his point quicker. The review gets underway with  roughly 300 words of plot summary, distractingly separated out in its own sub-section of the review. This plot summary goes into unnecessary detail and could have been cut and folded down into the main review.

The actual reviewing of “The Wolf of Wall Street” doesn’t start till nearly 700 words into the review. Judy gives some interesting real-world context for the film but does so at the expense of the analysis.

Judy’s either getting metaphorical on us by employing in his review, the same excess he criticizes Scorsese’s film for featuring or is in dire need of an editor and web designer.

Judy’s review is not aided by the incredibly boring layout. These days, when it’s fairly easy to use web design templates to create a visually arresting webpage, it’s surprising to see a review as visually dull as this one. Looking at Judy’s review will make readers long for the distraction of a banner ad or two.

Buy Tickets: fandango.com/

Original Post: e.xst.ma/tm/95F6

More Reviews: e.xst.ma/t/m/771305721

Rotten Tomatoes: rottentomatoes.com/m/771305721

★★★★⅛

4.08 stars for John Beifuss’s 1629‑word review of “The Wolf of Wall Street” on Commercial Appeal (Memphis, TN)

http://blogs.commercialappeal.com/the_bloodshot_eye/2013/12/wolf.html

John Beifuss’ review of the newest epic from Martin Scorsese, “‘The Wolf of Wall Street‘—A Review: The Howling,” is a tome itself; it’s at times tumescent, at times insightful, but it’s always fascinating.  

Beifuss’ opener ties some disparate notions together in a convincing manner, comparing (in more than one way) The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug to The Wolf of Wall Street.

It’s original and, just when it’s about to stretch credulity, Beifuss pulls out his trump card, using the odd connections in the first paragraphs as the cornerstone of this edifice of critique he’s building.  

Beifuss’ prose isn’t the stuff Pulitzers are made of, but it’s eminently respectable and skillful enough to enthrall readers for an admittedly lengthy 1629 words. There are a few times where the writing sags under the heft of all the criticism, but, for the right audience, it’ll be more than worth it.

For the real star of this show is the critique. Beifuss has more than enough time to explore his themes and flesh out his premises, all of which are richly drawn and serve to reveal a critical mind of prodigious talent.  

If he’s not on your watch list of critics, let this serve as your fair warning: he should be.  

Buy Tickets: fandango.com/

Original Post: e.xst.ma/tm/73DJ

More Reviews: e.xst.ma/t/m/771305721

Rotten Tomatoes: rottentomatoes.com/m/771305721

★★⅓☆☆

2.35 stars for Simon Reynolds’s 732‑word review of “The Wolf of Wall Street” on Digital Spy

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/review/a538857/the-wolf-of-wall-street-review-scorsese-dicaprios-stockbroker-excess.html

If unsuspecting eyeballs on a screen could be regally, albeit undeservedly transported to the top of the financial heap, Simon Reynolds The Wolf of Wall Street would be the stretch limo that got them there without any concerns about damage to the clarity of their vision or a steady overdose of scatology.

These eyes---let’s say yours---pick you up and the corner of Gekko & Wall, with brief stops at the Nostalgia bridge to the 20th century and Ollie Stone’s take on the creed that is greed.  

Next stop, Stone is left in the proverbial dust, replaced in the back seat, next to you…. that is, your eyes, where you’re romanced by a young, attractive Barnum clone, plying you with technically illicit substances that leave your pupils fully dilated and ready for love, by the hour.

After you’re done ‘doing’ Manhattan, this limo driver’s got a real treat for you----the aisle of DiCapri. . o, lair of the debauching Roman emperors, whose wealth, unlike his Roman forbears, is stamped on stolen-with-consent bills with a long-haired party animal in his own right, old Ben Franklin, patron of French femmes oulala, and The Hell Fire Club.

Somehow, the limo’s run out of gas, driver Reynolds having remembered that your eyes are about to be damned by bloodshot fatigue and steel bars at some country club owned by Uncle Sam.  

Your eyes are now open, swearing off porn however appealing it may be to 72 year old Capri landlords.

Buy Tickets: fandango.com/

Original Post: e.xst.ma/tm/839W

More Reviews: e.xst.ma/t/m/771305721

Rotten Tomatoes: rottentomatoes.com/m/771305721

★★★⅔☆

3.65 stars for Joe Morgenstern’s 417‑word review of “The Wolf of Wall Street” on Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303290904579278012548994926

If ever there were a movie to come down the pike that was squarely in the Wall Street Journal‘s wheelhouse, it’s Martin Scorsese’s big budget sleaze ball biopic of Wall Street conman Jordan Belfast. The folks at that honorable publication probably haven’t been this giddy since Gordon Gekko’s face was everywhere in the 80s.  

Joe Morgenstern, the paper’s resident critic, takes his enthusiasm and puts it to good use, sinking his teeth in deep and coming out with a (mostly) satisfying piece of film criticism in “‘Wolf of Wall Street’ Skims the Surface of Sin.”

Morgenstern’s prose is absolutely sumptuous. He turns phrases that will make your head spin and his word choice will delight readers in its specificity.  

It’s so good, in fact, that it provides a perfect cover for a review that doesn’t really say much of consequence. Like most critics who didn’t enjoy the film, Morgenstern argues that the debauchery was too over the top and too drawn out to have much effect. This is perfectly valid, but, also like other critics, he decides that making this point once, twice, or thrice isn’t enough and it begins to wear you down.

To his credit, he does stray briefly from this dull story arc to critique the acting, but it’s too little, too late.  

Buy Tickets: fandango.com/

Original Post: e.xst.ma/tm/8W8C

More Reviews: e.xst.ma/t/m/771305721

Rotten Tomatoes: rottentomatoes.com/m/771305721

★★★★⅔

4.6 stars for Jim Vejvoda’s 1448‑word review of “The Wolf of Wall Street” on IGN Movies

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/12/17/the-wolf-of-wall-street-review

As with most IGN reviews, and Jim Vejvoda’s in particular, “SEX, DRUGS, AND PENNY STOCKS,” is not at a loss for words.

You know you’re in for a long haul when Vejvoda expends 367 words at the beginning of the piece engaging in an extended biography of sorts of Jordan Belfort (the real guy, not the character).

If you’re of the right disposition, this is a thing of beauty. Rarely do reviews get this in-depth or assume you are a human being of moderate intelligence. If you prepare yourself for the journey and settle in, you’ll have a great time with this one.  

For a review of this heft, the structure and writing have to be stellar. Thankfully, Vejvoda understands this and delivers an orderly piece whose prose is imbued with such clarity and purpose that the paragraphs fly by with an ease that only the best writers achieve.  

The critique is exhaustive. Vejvoda is given the time and space to fully expound on his premises and readers are all the better for it—no stone is left unturned and he even goes on a few (mostly) worthwhile tangents.  

If you like reviews that give you credit as a reader and then reward you for it, get on this one now.  

Buy Tickets: fandango.com/

Original Post: e.xst.ma/tm/6H4S

More Reviews: e.xst.ma/t/m/771305721

Rotten Tomatoes: rottentomatoes.com/m/771305721

★★★★⅛

4.13 stars for Claudia Puig’s 535‑word review of “The Wolf of Wall Street” on USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2013/12/22/the-wolf-of-wall-street-review/2941331/

Claudia Puig’s work has always been appealing and unassuming. She has an all-inclusive style that speaks to everyone in a way so many critics fail to do, and in “‘Wolf of Wall Street’ prowls the ‘9os for fun,” she comes through again. ‘

For one thing, she’s a master of concise writing. Take a look at her first sentence: “From Mean Streets to Wall Street, director Martin Scorcese is fascinated by clever, one-track-minded slimeballs.” Some critics would have taken paragraphs to talk about this director’s previous work before launching into a review of the movie in question, already having lost focus. Not Puig. In that one glorious sentence, the audience knows what she’s talking about, and they’re ready to read about another of this director’s “slimeballs.”

With each new insight and observation she makes, this critic gets to the point and stays on point. “Focused” is the very definition of most of her work, including this piece. Why say in six sentences what can be said  in two? Why use four paragraphs when one is sufficient? For example, “Hailing from working-class origins, Belfort begins his Wall Street career as a decent guy” tells the audience plenty about that character’s beginnings. No need for more. The reviewer trusts that the audience will find out  more if/when they see the film. She knows that her job is to tell them whether, in her opinion, it’s worthwhile doing so.

For yet another example of splendidly concise film critiquing from someone who has made a successful career of them, read ‘Wolf of Wall Street’ Prowls the ‘90s for Fun.   

 Buy Tickets: fandango.com/

Original Post: e.xst.ma/tm/2PFW

More Reviews: e.xst.ma/t/m/771305721

Rotten Tomatoes: rottentomatoes.com/m/771305721

★★★★☆

4 stars for Sean Means’s 502‑word review of “The Wolf of Wall Street” on Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/entertainment2/57292612-223/belfort-street-wall-wolf.html.csp

Sean Means’ “Movie Review: ‘Wolf of Wall Street’ is a comic exercise in excess” features crisp prose that moves along at a galloping clip, entertaining the audience as it goes. Unlike  the suggested “excess” of the title, this is an exercise in clean, fresh writing.

Yes, this piece is a fast read, but like a finely streamlined action movie with nary a wasted shot, Means’ review keeps the audience glued to the action—or in this case, his words. He does this using a simple style that is never dull or pedantic, but, thankfully, stays far away from pretentious. He achieves that middle ground by combining intelligence with a style that never talks down to the audience. It is thoroughly enjoyable.

This piece also overcomes the plot synopsis trap that so many critics fall into; instead of bring the narrative to a dead stop (think how annoyed you feel when at a key point in a movie on TV, things break for a commercial), Means artfully weaves the plot effortlessly into the article without missing a beat.

If there is one kerfuffle in this piece, it is when he reveals the ultimate outcome of the film. Sometimes doing so is a necessary aspect of the overall critique. Not so here. He could have easily avoided it (though, to his credit, he does not go into detail).

Still, with that the only  glitch, Comic Exercise in Excess is well worth reading.  

Buy Tickets: fandango.com/

Original Post: e.xst.ma/tm/77S8

More Reviews: e.xst.ma/t/m/771305721

Rotten Tomatoes: rottentomatoes.com/m/771305721

★★★⅓☆

3.35 stars for Jonathan Lack’s 3508‑word review of “The Wolf of Wall Street” on We Got This Covered

http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/wolf-wall-street-review/

What it lacks (yes, intended) in broad perspective Jonathan Lack’s The Wolf of Wall Street compensates richly (yep, intended, again) with comparative understanding of crime drama’s inherent foolishness.

Unlike other media (TV comes to mind), and, indeed, cinematic genres, the ambiguity of morality---and its imperfect external expression in laws---is, here, given free reign in a tour de force of insights into this essentially grandiose and, therefore, American expressionistic canvas that is the movie screen.  

With such incisive mirroring of human frailties and foibles, one is put in mind by Lack’s descriptive breadth of the infamously axiomatic summation (by John Huston as Noah Cross in Chinatown): “Given the right circumstances, Mr. Gittes, people are capable of… … anything!”

All the more surprising is this in view of Lack’s confession at the outset that he is an devoted accolyte of Scorcese’s 21st century output.

 He overcomes this bias with that rarest of contemplative correlations of quantity vis a vis quality: a shorter than three hour film would have robbed (final pun) the project’s experimentation of its richness: “The nonessential is absolutely essential in a narrative such as this, where excess is everything & boundaries are

meaningless… ….”

Perhaps most persuasive, however, is Lack’s The Wolf of Wall Street  ‘s supple marriage of societal angst via popular music and popular outrage---remember the 60s?  Here, Lack lacks for nothing, save maybe a link to

iTunes.

Buy Tickets: fandango.com/

Original Post: e.xst.ma/tm/8BF2

More Reviews: e.xst.ma/t/m/771305721

Rotten Tomatoes: rottentomatoes.com/m/771305721