The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) - 4 stars out of 10

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) - 4 stars out of 10

“The Wolf of Wall Street” is a tough sell.  While Jordan Belfort’s story is interesting (especially seeing him transform from a wide-eyed, innocent business man to a corrupt Wall Street broker so quickly), the content is so offensive that it is difficult to even admit that you tolerated it without looking like a heathen.  The amount of nudity, explicit sexual content, and the record-setting usage of the f-word is so far over the top that this movie must be watched instead of enjoyed.  I know that Martin Scorsese is often an extremist but it was probably a mistake to grant his wish of “no content restrictions” to attract him to the film.  He has raised the bar to a new level (in a bad way) with this film.  If this film wins for Best Adapted Screenplay, there is something wrong with the system.  The story could have been effectively told without this shocking amount of filth.  Even if they would have used 180 f-words (averaging 1 per minute) instead of its 500+, they could have gotten their point across.  This should perhaps raise the question of what is required for a film to be NC-17.  This content is not suitable for any audience member, let alone those under the age of 17.  That being said, Leonardo DiCaprio is incredible once again.  I wouldn’t put this in his top 5, but it is hard to comprehend that several of his scenes were filmed without the influence of drugs.  He acts without abandon, creating precise moments of insanity that cannot be explained aside from calling him one of the greatest actors of this generation.  While I did not enjoy watching his most extreme drug scene (which is bound to become infamous), it was truly impressive.  On the other hand, I do not understand Jonah Hill’s Oscar nomination.  At all.  His acting in “Moneyball” was absolutely worthy of this recognition, but receiving a nomination for a goofball role like this just cheapens his other nomination.  He reminded me of a young Adam Sandler, and you don’t see Sandler receiving nominations for anything outside of the Razzies.  If you haven’t caught on, I completely disagree with this nomination.  It was nice to see Jean Dujardin in another American movie, but none of the acting was particularly memorable.  Probably the most notable part of this film is its beautiful visuals.  I would’ve much rather have seen it nominated for production design or cinematography than picture, directing, and screenplay.  This film had a lot of hype, but it is all because of its controversial content.  Even though Leo’s performance is inspired, I can’t recommend this movie in good conscience, nor could I ever watch it again.

Shrek the Musical - 9 stars out of 10

Shrek the Musical - 9 stars out of 10

“Shrek the Musical” is awesome and this new DVD release brings Broadway to your living room.  While nothing can ever match the original computer animated film, this stage version comes close.  It’s the same enchanting story (or  parody of Disney, depending on how you look at it) with new songs and gags that will keep you rolling on the floor.  The movie gives the impression that it would be impossible to translate it to the stage, but that just makes the special effects all the more fantastic.  With the original Broadway cast at the helm, the acting and singing is a real treat to watch.  Brian d’Arcy James was born to play the role of Shrek and is easily the most lovable ogre you have ever seen.  The best part of this film is Sutton Foster as Fiona.  I never really developed an attachment to this character in the movie but she is just so cute that you have to love her.  Daniel Breaker is great as Donkey but nothing can compare to Eddie Murphy.  The costumes are amazing as Christopher Sieber is shrunk down to Farquad size, and I love the way that they did the Gingerbread Man and the magic mirror.  If you haven’t seen Shrek on stage, you need to see this film even if only to gain an appreciation for such a complex fairy tale can be brought to the live stage.

All Is Lost - 8 stars out of 10

All Is Lost - 8 stars out of 10

“All Is Lost” is surreal.  The film has one character, less than 10 lines of dialogue, and one of the most complex villains imaginable: nature.  The 54 years of Robert Redford’s acting career culminate in this display of raw acting skill through facial expressions and body language.  At the age of 76, Redford gives a tutorial on great acting while performing many of his own physically demanding water stunts.  In the grand scheme of cinema, this is the performance that will define Redford’s career.  There is nothing flashy about his acting; instead, his eyes show a subtle transformation from sadness to determination to fear to resignation.  I am shocked that he did not receive an Oscar nomination for this performance, not only because it is so impressive but also because the Academy (who has only nominated him once in an acting category) should realize that this is his final shot at an Oscar.  Leonardo DiCaprio (whose performance in “The Wolf of Wall Street” isn’t even in the Top 10 of his career) should have voluntarily given up his nomination so that it could properly be awarded to Redford.  The film’s only shortcoming is the timing of its release.  A year after the incredible oceanic cinematography of “Life of Pi” and the same year as Sandra Bullock’s hopeless, isolated acting in “Gravity,” the wow factor is diminished because we have already experienced it.  Still, this 31-page script is more than an outline of the ways that this unnamed character might try to troubleshoot his hopeless situation.  It stirs our emotions and forces us to empathize with the character, questioning whether we would survive if put into his position.  “All Is Lost” moves slowly because of its concept, but Redford’s emotional moments drive the film to its masterful ending whose final images will leave you motionless.