# Wolf of Wall Street



## Zhen Chan (Dec 27, 2013)

What the flying fuck KT? Why doesn't this MASTERPEICE have a thread yet?

Saw it last night and it is easily the best movie I have ever seen. Leo and Jonah hill cut a bloody swath through the LA escape of both comedy and human decency in this movie and it is fuckin Amaaaaaaaaaaazing.

It is like a modern day Caligula, only without the pretention.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Dec 27, 2013)

It was good, I'd give it a 7/10.
I thought it was hilarious that Jonah Fucking Hill gave a better performance than Leo. 
It felt too much like a retread of Goodfellas though from the story structure and the fucking narration (why Scorcese insists on spoonfeeding narration I'll never understand).

Won't win Leo an Oscar (he doesn't deserve one anyways) but it's still a decent watch. Definitely NOT a masterpiece though in any sense of the word. You should watch more movies.


----------



## dream (Dec 28, 2013)

A masterpiece?  I strongly disagree.  The movie was a rather enjoyable comedy but nothing truly stellar in my opinion.


----------



## crazymtf (Dec 28, 2013)

I thought it was amazing. Loved the acting from just about everyone and was entertained the whole entire time. So far I've enjoyed very movie this guy has done except Shutter Island (Shit sucked)


----------



## Nightblade (Dec 28, 2013)

thought it was great too. funny as fuck. great performances from the actors especially Jonah and Matthew M. and dat Margot Robbie.  dat GOAT Aussie genes. 

my second favorite Scorsese-Leo movie just behind the Departed.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Dec 28, 2013)

Nightblade said:


> my second favorite Scorsese-Leo movie just behind the Departed.



How in the actual fuck can you consider it better than Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, or Raging Bull?


----------



## Nightblade (Dec 28, 2013)

Rica_Patin said:


> How in the actual fuck can you consider it better than Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, or Raging Bull?





Nightblade said:


> my second favorite *Scorsese-Leo* movie just behind the Departed.


learn to read *snip*.


----------



## Zhen Chan (Dec 28, 2013)

Dream said:


> A masterpiece?  I strongly disagree.  The movie was a rather enjoyable comedy but nothing truly stellar in my opinion.



Blowing coke up a whores ass not your cup of tea huh?


----------



## dream (Dec 28, 2013)

Zhen Chan said:


> Blowing coke up a whores ass not your cup of tea huh?



Nope.jpg                         .


----------



## crazymtf (Dec 28, 2013)

Rica_Patin said:


> How in the actual fuck can you consider it better than Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, or Raging Bull?



He said Leo-Martin...

Which would be Departed, this, and Shutter from what I know. This is my second favorite as well. Departed is my fave movie he's done (Taxi Driver a close second)


----------



## Rukia (Dec 29, 2013)

Best Scorsese is The King of Comedy.


----------



## TylerDurden (Dec 29, 2013)

Its trailers left me lukewarm but the string of clips recently released corresponding the movie were really good. Count me in.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Dec 30, 2013)

Zhen Chan said:


> Blowing coke up a whores ass not your cup of tea huh?



2edgy4mem8


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 31, 2013)

It was alright. A 6-7/10. Hated the narration, they didn't need to spoonfeed every scene to us. It was also 3 fucking hours long and not for good reason.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Dec 31, 2013)

heavy_rasengan said:


> It was alright. A 6-7/10. Hated the narration, they didn't need to spoonfeed every scene to us. It was also 3 fucking hours long and not for good reason.



Seeing how it's a modern Scorcese film I went in expecting that.

Fucking hate narration
[YOUTUBE][YOUTUBE]_VseQe4TFsg[/YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Stunna (Jan 1, 2014)

This movie was that hot trash.


----------



## crazymtf (Jan 4, 2014)

Lol only on here do I see people hate great movies haha.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jan 4, 2014)

crazymtf said:


> Lol only on here do I see people hate great movies haha.



I don't see anybody hating it.
Just people saying that it was a good, but not great movie.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 4, 2014)

Haven't seen it yet but seems like OP is overhyping it.


----------



## Zhen Chan (Jan 4, 2014)

Mider T said:


> Haven't seen it yet but seems like OP is overhyping it.



Mider get you waxy yellow banana ass to the movies


----------



## Stunna (Jan 4, 2014)

crazymtf said:


> Lol only on here do I see people hate great movies haha.


Prolly' 'cause it wasn't that great. In my opinion, of course.


----------



## Rukia (Jan 4, 2014)

crazymtf said:


> Lol only on here do I see people hate great movies haha.


I've noticed that too.  A lot of haters on this board.  And they all gather whenever they decide that something gets to be too popular.


----------



## Detective (Jan 4, 2014)

Rukia said:


> I've noticed that too.  A lot of haters on this board.  And they all gather whenever they decide that something gets to be too popular.



Para is probably secretly funding them. And Enno is secretly funding Para.


----------



## Atem (Jan 8, 2014)

Mider T said:


> Haven't seen it yet but seems like OP is overhyping it.



Not at all. The part where Leonardo threw a midget into a giant dart board will stay with me for the rest of my days.

As well as that part where he got so fucked up on lemons he got cerebral palsy, and drove home partially paralyzed. That was fucking comedy gold. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. 

Or, that part where Leo tries to bribe the FBI. In fact, there's a lot of parts that just need to be immortalized. The part where Naomi arrives home to find her butler having a gay orgy in her house. That was just so random it had me in stitches.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jan 8, 2014)

Gwyn said:


> Not at all. The part where Leonardo threw a midget into a giant dart board will stay with me for the rest of my days.
> 
> As well as that part where he got so fucked up on lemons he got cerebral palsy, and drove home partially paralyzed. That was fucking comedy gold. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong.
> 
> Or, that part where Leo tries to bribe the FBI. In fact, there's a lot of parts that just need to be immortalized. The part where Naomi arrives home to find her butler having a gay orgy in her house. That was just so random it had me in stitches.



It's a funny comedy and a good movie. Nothing more than that though.
So therefore the OP is grossly overrating it.


----------



## Atem (Jan 8, 2014)

Define masterpiece. As for me, it is merely the humble action of weaponizing midgets. 

It is a true art.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jan 8, 2014)

Gwyn said:


> Define masterpiece. As for me, it is merely the humble action of weaponizing midgets.
> 
> It is a true art.



Please watch more movies.
That's really all I have to say.
Film taste grows with experience.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jan 8, 2014)

I don't expect this to be good, scorsese isn't exactly my cup of tea. I always feel like he is overrated because of his past films. 
So yeah I'll keep my expectations moderate so I don't suffer a huge let down.


----------



## Atem (Jan 8, 2014)

Rica_Patin said:


> Please watch more movies.
> That's really all I have to say.
> Film taste grows with experience.



It's like you don't have a sense of humor.


----------



## crazymtf (Jan 8, 2014)

Rica_Patin said:


> Please watch more movies.
> That's really all I have to say.
> Film taste grows with experience.


So cause someone loves it and thinks it's a masterpiece they are wrong and should watch more movies? Fuck out of here


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jan 8, 2014)

Gwyn said:


> It's like you don't have a sense of humor.



I found the movie hilarious and enjoyed it a lot. Same with Superbad.
Doesn't mean either of those movies are masterpieces. 



crazymtf said:


> So cause someone loves it and thinks it's a masterpiece they are wrong and should watch more movies? Fuck out of here



How can it be a masterpiece if it's not even close to Scorcese's best film? Have you even seen any of his golden-era films?


----------



## Cheeky (Jan 8, 2014)

Movie still isn't out yet over here. 



Rukia said:


> Best Scorsese is The King of Comedy.



I'd say it's DeNiro's best performance. Underappreciated movie, overall.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jan 8, 2014)

crazymtf said:


> So cause someone loves it and thinks it's a masterpiece they are wrong and should watch more movies? Fuck out of here



Generally, anyone that throws around the label "masterpiece" to every movie they see needs to watch more movies. With that being said, this movie is definitely not a "masterpiece". Not even close. Was it a good movie? Of course.


----------



## Atem (Jan 9, 2014)

Rica_Patin said:


> I found the movie hilarious and enjoyed it a lot. Same with Superbad.
> Doesn't mean either of those movies are masterpieces.
> 
> How can it be a masterpiece if it's not even close to Scorcese's best film? Have you even seen any of his golden-era films?



I have seen Goodfellas a bazillion times, Cape Fear, Taxi Driver, Gangs of New York, Casino, and Shutter Island. 

I honestly think Taxi Driver is overrated outside of that one scene where DeNiro goes into a mirror says, "Are you talking to me?" It's a great movie but people worship it religiously. For god's sake there are people who still argue about whether that last scene was a hallucination or not. I have not seen Raging Bull and Mean Streets so I can't really comment on those two.

If a person loves a movie let them. Masterpiece is a totally subjective term anyway. One man's garbage could be another man's gold. I thought the narration was a throwback to Goodfellas and when you hear the internal monologue of the characters it's genuinely funny; especially that part when Jordan is talking to Naomi's aunt Emma. Of Scorcese's films I find this the most blunt, offensive, and satire filled that's why I like it. 

I don't think any movie is a masterpiece period, and the only reason I would throw that term around is when I am in awe of watching a movie for the first time. People putting something on a pedestal makes it hard for them appreciate anything that's not it anyway. It would ruin the experience for me if I am trying to hope a movie is something it's not instead of appreciating what it is.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jan 9, 2014)

Gwyn said:


> If a person loves a movie let them. *Masterpiece is a totally subjective term anyway.* One man's garbage could be another man's gold. I thought the narration was a throwback to Goodfellas and when you hear the internal monologue of the characters it's genuinely funny; especially that part when Jordan is talking to Naomi's aunt Emma. Of Scorcese's films I find this the most blunt, offensive, and satire filled that's why I like it.



Its not "totally" subjective. The term masterpiece was first used with craftsmen that wanted to enter certain guilds or gain recognition in certain guilds. They would have to create a "masterpiece" and the guild decided whether it was a masterpiece or not. In modern times, the common application for "masterpiece" (in regards to film) is a film that has recieved universal critical appraise. Another  application is a persons "best" work. The latter is more subjective. 





> I don't think any movie is a masterpiece period, and the only reason I would throw that term around is when I am in awe of watching a movie for the first time. People putting something on a pedestal makes it hard for them appreciate anything that's not it anyway. It would ruin the experience for me if I am trying to hope a movie is something it's not instead of appreciating what it is.



Not everything is about you and not everything is about the viewer. Some movies deserve the recognition given to them. Some movies deserve to be put on a pedestel or called a masterpiece. If a filmmaker is able to create something groundbreaking and stunning; it deserves to stand out from other movies.


----------



## Atem (Jan 9, 2014)

heavy_rasengan said:


> Its not "totally" subjective. The term masterpiece was first used with craftsmen that wanted to enter certain guilds or gain recognition in certain guilds. They would have to create a "masterpiece" and the guild decided whether it was a masterpiece or not. In modern times, the common application for "masterpiece" (in regards to film) is a film that has recieved universal critical appraise. Another  application is a persons "best" work. The latter is more subjective.



Now the pretentious hogwash. Call of Duty gets universal acclaim does that make it a masterpiece? There are things people call art that entire society's would call garbage. Does that make the society wrong? No, it means their opinion and view point of it is different. 

What makes a masterpiece a masterpiece are the people who observe it and call it that. They define what it is. There is no universal standard to determine this. 



> Not everything is about you and *not everything is about the viewer*. Some movies deserve the recognition given to them.



Yes it is. The viewers are whom determine whether it is bad or good. The viewers are the ones who determine whether it will be immortalized or not. The viewers determine whether it will even be remembered. 



> Some movies deserve to be put on a pedestal or called a masterpiece. If a filmmaker is able to create something groundbreaking and stunning; it deserves to stand out from other movies.



So, a hundred other directors can imitate it and make the same god damn movie except worse? That type of thinking leads to people worshiping something and ignoring whatever flaws it might have. 

Cause yes, there is no such thing as a masterpiece or a flawless piece of art. Unless we determine it as such. You can love a movie. That's fine. But don't try to make everything else follow in line with it.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jan 9, 2014)

Gwyn said:


> Now the pretentious hogwash. Call of Duty gets universal acclaim does that make it a masterpiece? There are things people call art that entire society's would call garbage. Does that make the society wrong? No, it means their opinion and view point of it is different.
> 
> What makes a masterpiece a masterpiece are the people who observe it and call it that. They define what it is. There is no universal standard to determine this.



Yeah, lets just make a false dichotomy and then call the other person pretentious. I never claimed that there was a universal standard to determine what a masterpiece is; learn how to read. I merely claimed that it is not completely one or the other because the term "masterpiece" has many different applications. 

One application being a piece of work that has seen universal critical praise.



> Masterpiece (or chef d'œuvre) in modern usage refers to a creation that has been given *much critical praise*,



Another application being the "best" work;



> especially one that is considered the greatest work of a person's career





and yet another one that is simply defined as a great piece of work.

In regards to the first definition, this movie along with many others would not be considered a masterpiece. The other definitions are more or less subjective (thought you have to be pretty dense to consider this Scorcese's best work regardless of how much you liked it). 






> Yes it is. The viewers are whom determine whether it is bad or good. The viewers are the ones who determine whether it will be immortalized or not. The viewers determine whether it will even be remembered.



And the viewers are also the ones that have the "privilege" of enjoying a good film. I personally don't have this "me, me, me" mentality and I believe that a good movie deserves recognition. 




> So, a hundred other directors can imitate it and* make the same god damn movie* *except worse*? That type of thinking leads to people worshiping something and ignoring whatever flaws it might have.



Self-refuting point and again complaining about great movies getting great reception just makes you look stupid.




> Cause yes, there is no such thing as a masterpiece or a flawless piece of art. Unless we determine it as such. *You can love a movie. That's fine. But don't try to make everything else follow in line with it*.



Like you're doing with Wolf of Wallstreet? Lol. Come on now.


----------



## Atem (Jan 9, 2014)

heavy_rasengan said:


> Yeah, lets just make a false dichotomy and then call the other person pretentious. I never claimed that there was a universal standard to determine what a masterpiece is; learn how to read.



Learn how to better defend your stance with actual answers instead of pulling up definitions from wikipedia, and learn how to word yourself in a way that does not make you come off as a stick in the mud.

That should be easy right?



> I merely claimed that it is not completely one or the other because the term "masterpiece" has many different applications.



All of which require the opinions of those who have watched the film and gave their opinion and/or review on it. There is not an application that exits that is unbiased. 



> One application being a piece of work that has seen universal critical praise.



This one is about as shallow as can be. Do you have any idea how little the critique of professionals is worth in this day and age? Reviews can be bought. People can be bribed and expectations are to be met with obedience rather any real opinion. There's also a matter of actually knowing the reviewers. They have certain tastes, likes, and dislikes. They are not totally unbiased when they do a review. 



> Another application being the "best" work;



Define best. They only way you are getting a "best" is by having a preference for something over another something.



> and yet another one that is simply defined as a great piece of work.
> 
> In regards to the first definition, this movie along with many others would not be considered a masterpiece. The other definitions are more or less subjective (thought you have to be pretty dense to consider this Scorcese's best work regardless of how much you liked it).



What is a great piece of work? What makes a film or anything great? What makes a person go "wow" when they see it? What is great?

The only answer to that question is something answered by the people who watch it. There is no inherent great. There are only things the viewers and the fans elevate to greatness itself.

Where do I say this is Scorcese's best work? Where in the OP is that said. Heck, it does not even say that. I do think it's better than Caligula but that's just my opinion. 

My personal favorites of what I have seen of his work are Gangs of New York and Goodfellas. I also happen to like this particular movie. 

Not "I think it's the very best movie ever." This entire thing started because I did not think the OP was overhyping it. 




> And the viewers are also the ones that have the "privilege" of enjoying a good film. *I personally don't have this "me, me, me" mentality *and I believe that a good movie deserves recognition.



Yes, you do.

What is good then? Do you think your idea of what a good movie is universal or not? You can not say it is a masterpiece or good or whateverthefuck without subjectivity getting in the way. That's just common sense. 



> Self-refuting point and again complaining about great movies getting great reception just makes you look stupid.



>missing the point of what I said entirely

Good job. 

Movies being put on pedestal as masterpieces leads to mimicry of them or the things done in them. This is not a good thing in my opinion. An example is the rampant use of CG and 3-D ever since Avatar came out. 

The repeat of trends and the overuse of them leading to stagnation in the film industry instead of any new ideas. That I don't personally like. 



> Like you're doing with Wolf of Wallstreet? Lol. Come on now.



When have I gone into a thread for _another movie_ and said "this movie should be more like Wolf of Wall Street" or "this movie sucks in comparison to the Wolf of Wall Street" or "they should have done it like they did this one scene in The Wolf of Wall Street." 

Go ahead. I'm sure you will find something.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jan 9, 2014)

Gwyn said:


> Learn how to better defend your stance with actual answers instead of pulling up definitions from wikipedia, and learn how to word yourself in a way that does not make you come off as a stick in the mud.
> 
> That should be easy right?



Oh shit did I back up my claims using external sources from Wikipedia? I'll be sure to never do that again. I forgot, you > Wikipedia. I understand now. 

And in case you haven't figured it out yet, I don't give two shits about your opinion on my etiquette.




> All of which require the opinions of those who have watched the film and gave their opinion and/or review on it. There is not an application that exits that is unbiased.



Actually there is if you had the mind to think about it for a second. Let me give you an example. Lincoln is widely touted as a masterpiece due to DDL's extremely accurate portrayal of Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln's mannerisms and speech has been documented very well. Now, regardless if you think this movie is a masterpiece or not; as a historical drama it would not be considered a masterpiece (which ever definition of it you feel like applying) if DDL's portrayal was not accurate. The objectivity in this sense is related to the film being able to accurately depict and/or mimic the historical situation and people of the time.

12 years a slave is now also being called a masterpiece in some circles due to the fact that it was able to depict the reality of a controversial historical time period. The objectivity in this scenario is directly linked with the realism. Are these completely objective metrics? Of course not, it never is and I never claimed it to be so but don't be dense enough to make ridiculous universal acclamations. 

Now, lets explore some reverse scenarios. A film with a multitude of plot holes and blatant errors cannot be considered a masterpiece. This is based off the technical merit of the film. Though, according to you, calling a 5 second clip of me taking a piss is as much of a masterpiece as any film considered so. 




> This one is about as shallow as can be. Do you have any idea how little the critique of professionals is worth in this day and age? Reviews can be bought. People can be bribed and expectations are to be met with obedience rather any real opinion. There's also a matter of actually knowing the reviewers. They have certain tastes, likes, and dislikes. They are not totally unbiased when they do a review.



"Durrr do you have any idea how little the critique of scientists is worth in this day and age? Peer-reviewed journal articles can be bought. Scientists can be bribed and expectations are to be met with obedience rather than any real opinion. There's also a matter of actually knowing the scientists. They have certain biases, likes, and dislikes."

Please save your ridiculous conspiracy theories and hasty generalizations with those of a similar mind. Just because they can be bought doesn't mean they are bought. Just because I don't know some of them does not mean that their opinions don't hold any merit. I never claimed that they were "totally" unbiased or that their opinions are the end all. I merely stated that in some applications of the term "masterpiece" it can refer to critical reception. True that the opinions are mostly subjective but if the term is defined in that way; critical reception becomes an objective metric. This isn't that hard to grasp.







> Define best. They only way you are getting a "best" is by having a preference for something over another something.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





			
				Heavy Rasengan said:
			
		

> In regards to the first definition, this movie along with many others would not be considered a masterpiece. *The other definitions are more or less subjective*







> Where do I say this is Scorcese's best work? Where in the OP is that said. Heck, it does not even say that. I do think it's better than Caligula but that's just my opinion.
> 
> My personal favorites of what I have seen of his work are Gangs of New York and Goodfellas. I also happen to like this particular movie.
> 
> Not "I think it's the very best movie ever." This entire thing started because I did not think the OP was overhyping it.



Oh wow. Can you read my points carefully before jumping to such conclusions? 

You claimed that this movie is a masterpiece.

I stated that if a masterpiece was defined in this way:



> an artists BEST work = masterpiece



then you have to be pretty dense to consider it one.




> Yes, you do.
> 
> What is good then? *Do you think your idea of what a good movie is universal or not?* You can not say it is a masterpiece or good or whateverthefuck without subjectivity getting in the way. That's just common sense.





I've been telling you over and fucking over again that I do not believe so. Go re-read my damn posts.




> Movies being put on pedestal as masterpieces leads to mimicry of them or the things done in them. This is not a good thing in my opinion. An example is the rampant use of CG and 3-D ever since Avatar came out.
> 
> The repeat of trends and the overuse of them leading to stagnation in the film industry instead of any new ideas. That I don't personally like.



Huh? I do see this phenomenon but not as much as you are trying to imply. Why don't you name me some movies that are "considered" masterpieces that have remakes. If anything, I would think that movies which are considered as masterpieces get less remakes due to the sheer difficulty of topping it. The only one I can really think of right now is Let the Right One In.


Anyways, let me clarify my position since you are going all over the place. I never claimed that there is an absolute objective metric in determining a masterpiece or how good a specific film is. This is heavily dependent on the genre of the movie and specific elements like, acting, cinematography, story,etc.

What I have been stating from the beginning is that while we can't claim that anything is completely objective, we can also not claim that something is completely subjective. ESPECIALLY if we are going off certain definitions that include specific opinions (professional) as an objective metric.


----------



## Atem (Jan 9, 2014)

heavy_rasengan said:


> Oh shit did I back up my claims using external sources from Wikipedia? I'll be sure to never do that again. I forgot, you > Wikipedia. I understand now.



Good. You should know that I am superior in wikipedia in every way for I am the one true God. 

The reason I said that was because it was a pointless action. Honestly, going so far as to cite something obvious like that.

That is like if I were to bitch about you misspelling a word. I know what the word means for god's sake. Oh, I'm sorry. I mean for "my" sake. 



> And in case you haven't figured it out yet, I don't give two shits about your opinion on my etiquette.



Good. Then you should not care if I called you a stubborn mortal with no sense of humor who decided to turn this into a derailment because he felt like need to express himself. Particularly, that you could just _not believe_ that anyone could ever think this movie was a masterpiece. 



> Actually there is if you had the mind to think about it for a second. Let me give you an example. Lincoln is widely touted as a masterpiece due to DDL's extremely accurate portrayal of Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln's mannerisms and speech has been documented very well. Now, regardless if you think this movie is a masterpiece or not; as a historical drama it would not be considered a masterpiece (which ever definition of it you feel like applying) if DDL's portrayal was not accurate. The objectivity in this sense is related to the film being able to accurately depict and/or mimic the historical situation and people of the time.



That just means it's historically accurate. A movie can still be that and be as boring as watching paint dry, and people might think it's a masterpiece sure but there will be plenty who don't as well. 

That includes historians who will disagree on how historically accurate it actually was at the end of the day. 



> 12 years a slave is now also being called a masterpiece in some circles due to the fact that it was able to depict the reality of a controversial historical time period. The objectivity in this scenario is directly linked with the realism. Are these completely objective metrics? Of course not, it never is and I never claimed it to be so but don't be dense enough to make ridiculous universal acclamations.



We're not talking about slavery here. We're talking a comedy that is not at all grounded in realism so that has no bearing on this film's credentials for being a master piece or not. 

The reason I made universal acclamations was mostly because I was just trying to sound pseudo-philosophical in contrast your stick in the mud attitude. You know, mix things up a little. 



> Now, lets explore some reverse scenarios. A film with a multitude of plot holes and blatant errors cannot be considered a masterpiece



Why not?



> This is based off the technical merit of the film. Though, according to you, calling a 5 second clip of me taking a piss is as much of a masterpiece as any film considered so.



I am sure there are at least few people out there with that sort of fetish. The world is a horrible place like that. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this. 



> "Durrr do you have any idea how little the critique of scientists is worth in this day and age? Peer-reviewed journal articles can be bought. Scientists can be bribed and expectations are to be met with obedience rather than any real opinion. There's also a matter of actually knowing the scientists. They have certain biases, likes, and dislikes."



We're not talking about science or facts here that are actually grounded in reality. We are talking about pieces of fiction put on film, and what people see them as whether they be masterpieces or not; which is entirely up to societal views. 



> Please save your ridiculous conspiracy theories and hasty generalizations with those of a similar mind. Just because they can be bought doesn't mean they are bought.



It does not matter whether they are bought or not. It does not matter whether they are totally unbiased when they review it. What matters is that people too often rely on the critique of others on a movie or piece of fiction instead of their own opinion. That's why I think it's shallow to use them instead of watching it yourself and forming your own opinion. 



> Just because I don't know some of them does not mean that their opinions don't hold any merit. I never claimed that they were "totally" unbiased or that their opinions are the end all. I merely stated that in some applications of the term "masterpiece" it can refer to critical reception. True that the opinions are mostly subjective but if the term is defined in that way; critical reception becomes an objective metric. This isn't that hard to grasp.



What about your opinion? Yours, the viewer's, is the most important. Not someone who is not you. They are just background noise in a world that revolves around you. 

If the whole world told you that this movie, The Wolf of Wall Street, was the very best masterpiece... would you consider their opinions legitimate? No, I don't think so. If someone told me Twilight was considered a masterpiece I would laugh. If that was the case then that is one horrible masterpiece. 



> Oh wow. Can you read my points carefully before jumping to such conclusions?
> 
> You claimed that this movie is a masterpiece.
> 
> ...



Where is it written that a man may have only one masterpiece in his life? A lot of people consider both The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit to be both Tolkien's masterpieces. The film adaptations of both are respectively considered by many to be Peter Jackson's. 

Also, one again as I said many times before. No one is going to agree on what these masterpieces are because they are going to have their own opinion. Unless they're robots. In which case they must be destroyed before they rebel. 



> I've been telling you over and fucking over again that I do not believe so. Go re-read my damn posts.



Then why are we arguing, my son? 



> Huh? I do see this phenomenon but not as much as you are trying to imply. Why don't you name me some movies that are "considered" masterpieces that have remakes. If anything, I would think that movies which are considered as masterpieces get less remakes due to the sheer difficulty of topping it. The only one I can really think of right now is Let the Right One In.



Oh, I was not just talking about remakes here but that is very easy question to answer.

Total Recall, The Invasion (Re-make of Invasion of the Body Snatchers), Guess Who, Rollerball, Psycho, Pink Panther, The Wicker Man, and so many others. There's also some I even like such as the remake of True Grit. 




> Anyways, let me clarify my position since you are going all over the place. I never claimed that there is an absolute objective metric in determining a masterpiece or how good a specific film is. This is heavily dependent on the genre of the movie and specific elements like, acting, cinematography, story,etc.



Then why are you saying The Wolf of Wall Street can't be at all considered a masterpiece by anyone, my son?



> What I have been stating from the beginning is that while we can't claim that anything is completely objective, we can also not claim that something is completely subjective.



That's a very gray area there. I've learned from experience that you're either objective or you're not. You can't be both. 



> ESPECIALLY if we are going off certain definitions that include specific opinions (professional) as an objective metric.



Opinions are not objective by principal alone? In that case we're building something objective from something subjective and that's just all sorts of macabre.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jan 10, 2014)

Gwyn said:


> Good. You should know that I am superior in wikipedia in every way for I am the one true God.



I know, I know, I concede.




> The reason I said that was because it was a pointless action. Honestly, going so far as to cite something obvious like that.
> 
> That is like if I were to bitch about you misspelling a word. I know what the word means for god's sake. Oh, I'm sorry. I mean for "my" sake.



Well it may seem obvious to some but that is not always the case. I wasn't really trying to "define" it for you. I was just trying to show you that there are different applications for the term.




> Good. Then you should not care if I called you a stubborn mortal with no sense of humor who decided to turn this into a derailment because he felt like need to express himself. Particularly, that you could just _not believe_ that anyone could ever think this movie was a masterpiece.



Be my guest. I could certainly believe it given that someone has already laid claim to this movie being a masterpiece. Whether I believe it so is something else completely.





> That just means it's historically accurate. A movie can still be that and be as boring as watching paint dry, and people might think it's a masterpiece sure but there will be plenty who don't as well.
> 
> That includes historians who will disagree on how historically accurate it actually was at the end of the day.



Regardless, as a historical epic it is considered a masterpiece in some circles and the only point I was trying to make is that there is somewhat of an objective metric for that.




> We're not talking about science or facts here that are actually grounded in reality. We are talking about pieces of fiction put on film, and what people see them as whether they be masterpieces or not; which is entirely up to societal views.



Again, that depends on what application of masterpiece we are using. Some applications can demand that the film be technically sound and many technical merits of films can use some objective metrics.



> It does not matter whether they are bought or not. It does not matter whether they are totally unbiased when they review it. What matters is that people too often rely on the critique of others on a movie or piece of fiction instead of their own opinion. That's why I think it's shallow to use them instead of watching it yourself and forming your own opinion.



Agreed but people will be influenced by ALL opinions. The simple act of coming in KT and discussing a certain film will mean that others will influence my opinion. The same goes for reading reviews by critics.



> What about your opinion? Yours, the viewer's, is the most important. Not someone who is not you. They are just background noise in a world that revolves around you.



Not necessarily. I mean, do you believe that you are able to get everything out of a movie experience? I certainly cannot and sometimes when I talk to others or read other peoples reviews; I find out new concepts or ideas that I never thought existed before. Surely you cannot tell me this is such a horrible thing.



> If the whole world told you that this movie, The Wolf of Wall Street, was the very best masterpiece... would you consider their opinions legitimate? No, I don't think so. If someone told me Twilight was considered a masterpiece I would laugh. If that was the case then that is one horrible masterpiece.



Well, if they were "convincing" then I don't know. I saw the movie one time and it was a three hour movie. There could have been plenty that I missed that could change my opinion on the movie but you are correct that I would most likely not rate it that high regardless of others opinions.



> Where is it written that a man may have only one masterpiece in his life? A lot of people consider both The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit to be both Tolkien's masterpieces. The film adaptations of both are respectively considered by many to be Peter Jackson's.



An application of the term masterpiece says that. Do I agree with it? No. Though, its still an application of the term.



> Also, one again as I said many times before. No one is going to agree on what these masterpieces are because they are going to have their own opinion. Unless they're robots. In which case they must be destroyed before they rebel.



Actually, contrary to what you said here, I would reckon that many people do agree on what a masterpiece is and ironically, the majority of movies considered a masterpiece have huge critical reception. Go and search the GOAT films and i'm pretty sure many people will agree that they belong there.



> Then why are we arguing, my son?



I'm just trying to show you that while it is primarily subjective; there can be objective metrics. My boy.



> Oh, I was not just talking about remakes here but that is very easy question to answer.
> 
> Total Recall, The Invasion (Re-make of Invasion of the Body Snatchers), Guess Who, Rollerball, Psycho, Pink Panther, The Wicker Man, and so many others. There's also some I even like such as the remake of True Grit.



Fair enough but you have to admit that sometimes they do justice like True Grit or Let the Right One In.




> Then why are you saying The Wolf of Wall Street can't be at all considered a masterpiece by anyone, my son?



I think you misunderstood. What I meant was that it being considered a masterpiece or not is dependent on what application of masterpiece we are using.



> That's a very gray area there. I've learned from experience that you're either objective or you're not. You can't be both.



That is a false dichotomy. 




> Opinions are not objective by principal alone? In that case we're building something objective from something subjective and that's just all sorts of macabre.



Not necessarily. "What is the most popular sport in the world?" The answer to this is an objective one even though the metric used is subjective.


----------



## Atem (Jan 10, 2014)

heavy_rasengan said:


> I know, I know, I concede.



It's only natural after all. I am always right.

This would be the part where my nose grows three times its size and I raise it in air as I laugh haughtily. 



> Well it may seem obvious to some but that is not always the case. I wasn't really trying to "define" it for you. I was just trying to show you that there are different applications for the term.



Different applications that are totally not of a singular sort. Masterpiece is a cheap word. People throw it around like candy. Not quite as much as say people throw around terms like New York Best Seller for books but it's close. 



> Be my guest. I could certainly believe it given that someone has already laid claim to this movie being a masterpiece. *Whether I believe it so is something else completely.*



That's fine as I said myself but why care so much over something as menial as someone else calling it a "Masterpiece?" 



> Regardless, as a historical epic it is considered a masterpiece in some circles and the only point I was trying to make is that there is somewhat of an objective metric for that.



An objective merit that no can agree on does not sound very objective to me. It could just be the people arguing are silly or it could be that what they are arguing about has no real clear answer.



> Again, that depends on what application of masterpiece we are using. Some applications *can demand that the film be technically sound and many technical merits of films can use some objective metrics.*



That just means the continuity of the film is strong and it does not contradict itself a lot. Some of what are considered masterpiece films like the Terminator 2 have errors such as when the T-1000 punches his way into a helicopter and the hole he made is gone after he starts piloting it. 

That does not effect the quality of the overall film. You can also do a lot with a little. The effects for movies back in the day could be really bad but they only sometimes hampered the actual plot. 




> Agreed but people will be influenced by ALL opinions. The simple act of coming in KT and discussing a certain film will mean that others will influence my opinion. The same goes for reading reviews by critics.



Why should you let yourself be influenced at all? If you like something, like it. If you hate something, hate it. If you feel lukewarm about something, feel lukewarm about it. The critics can possibly point things out that you did not know but unless it's something that is really glaring or bothers you why should you care about it?



> Not necessarily. I mean, do you believe that you are able to get everything out of a movie experience? I certainly cannot and sometimes when I talk to others or read other peoples reviews; I find out new concepts or ideas that I never thought existed before. Surely you cannot tell me this is such a horrible thing.



If the critiques knows something you don't or have interviewed those involved in the film sure. But if you are just taking their opinion about how good it is to heart then absolutely not. That should be up to the viewer's themselves to decide. 

I have rated films before but that's just out of boredom and to share what I do know out of it. If someone likes it more or hate its; they should stick to their own feelings on it rather than mine. 



> Well, if they were "convincing" then I don't know. I saw the movie one time and it was a three hour movie. There could have been plenty that I missed that could change my opinion on the movie but you are correct that I would most likely not rate it that high regardless of others opinions.



Well, there it is then. That's what I am talking about. Individual opinion. 



> An application of the term masterpiece says that. Do I agree with it? No. Though, its still an application of the term.



The greatest work in a man's career can be just as such his greatest work(s). The application of that term can be plural and is not limited to just one thing. 

Masterpiece can also just mean a great piece of work. Ultimately, people will disagree on that. No one has the same tastes as someone else. If society's values were alien enough there might be a world or time out there where Goodfellas is universally panned. 



> Actually, contrary to what you said here, I would reckon that many people do agree on what a masterpiece is and ironically, the majority of movies considered a masterpiece have huge critical reception. Go and search the GOAT films and i'm pretty sure many people will agree that they belong there.



Yet, how many of those critiques are sincere and how many of them are just based on nostalgia? More importantly, how did the times influence the people's tastes in what a good movie was? How did the times effect their ability to even watch the film thoroughly?

You know, when Citizen Kane came out nobody cared about it at all. Now years later it's considered one of the greatest movies ever. Why do you think that is? The times change and with that so do the definition of words and how they are used. As well as the opinion and viewpoints of those in a society. 



> I'm just trying to show you that while it is primarily subjective; there can be objective metrics. My boy.



Objective metrics that are still based on things that can be entirely subjective. The only "true objective metrics" are things of a technical level, like in-story continuity and not having camera men show up in the background, and those do not determine the actual quality of the story.

Art needs heart not machine perfection.  



> Fair enough but you have to admit that sometimes they do justice like True Grit or Let the Right One In.



Yes, I do agree on that statement. As long as they add their own flair to it that reflects the times it was made it can be something good. Instead of just copying the formula and repeating the same thing ad nauseam. 



> I think you misunderstood. What I meant was that it being considered a masterpiece or not is dependent on what application of masterpiece we are using.



If you are using the definition of the greatest work in a man's life then I think we are clear here. A man can have more that one work that can be considered his greatest depending on whom the viewer or critique is. It's also going to vary with where you are and what time you are in. 



> That is a false dichotomy.



Yet, all false dichotomy's typically harbor some truth or known bias. A person who quites smoking just has to either start smoking again or switch to some other addiction. That is also a false dichotomy but it does happen nonetheless. You could say it's a self-fulfilling prophecy but there's too many people with too much of a difference in experience to say that.

True, if something has something objective in it, it can considered objective but if it also has something subjective it can be considered just that as well.

You opted for a middle-area. I opted to go of the way of choosing whichever one felt more prominent to me; in this case the subjective parts.  



> Not necessarily. "What is the most popular sport in the world?" The answer to this is an objective one even though the metric used is subjective.



Not exactly the best analogy because popularity does not actually deal with how good something might be considered. It just deals with how many people actually like it. It could be something boring or terrible but if a lot of people like it others will just go along with it as well, especially if the one's who like it are notable, famous, or charismatic. 

That's how clicks and large fanbases are formed. It gives people something to talk and relate about. The object of adoration does not have to be anything special.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jan 10, 2014)

Ok I've seen it and its pretty good. 8/10


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jan 11, 2014)

The best part of this is, you can still kind of follow the plot of the movie from this if you've already seen it. That's how much fuck shows up in every single scene of this movie.
[youtube]KKMGhtBmJro[/youtube]


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jan 13, 2014)

Gwyn said:


> Different applications that are totally not of a singular sort. Masterpiece is a cheap word. People throw it around like candy. Not quite as much as say people throw around terms like New York Best Seller for books but it's close.



Exactly, they are not of a singular sort which was my point entirely. Some applications of it are subjective while others can be objective. 





> That's fine as I said myself but why care so much over something as menial as someone else calling it a "Masterpiece?"



I don't think it is a masterpiece and I thought he was referring to it as a masterpiece because of the critical reception it got. 



> *An objective merit that no can agree on does not sound very objective to me*. It could just be the people arguing are silly or it could be that what they are arguing about has no real clear answer.



If its based off critical reception then that point is moot. 




> That just means the continuity of the film is strong and it does not contradict itself a lot. Some of what are considered masterpiece films like the Terminator 2 have errors such as when the T-1000 punches his way into a helicopter and the hole he made is gone after he starts piloting it.
> 
> That does not effect the quality of the overall film. You can also do a lot with a little. The effects for movies back in the day could be really bad but they only sometimes hampered the actual plot.



You gave an example of a movie with few technical errors. If the movie was riddled with plot holes from beginning to end and then it ends with a T-rex coming out of no where and eating arnold; then I think we could objectively say that this movie is not a masterpiece.

For movies backin the day; you must judge them for when they were made or else you're not being objective in the first place.





> Why should you let yourself be influenced at all? If you like something, like it. If you hate something, hate it. If you feel lukewarm about something, feel lukewarm about it. The critics can possibly point things out that you did not know but unless it's something that is really glaring or bothers you why should you care about it?


 
If it is something interesting, then I will definitely care about it and you don't exactly "let" yourself be influenced. As soon as you hear someone elses opinions you are influenced whether you want it or not.




> If the critiques knows something you don't or have interviewed those involved in the film sure. But if you are just taking their opinion about how good it is to heart then absolutely not. That should be up to the viewer's themselves to decide.
> 
> I have rated films before but that's just out of boredom and to share what I do know out of it. If someone likes it more or hate its; they should stick to their own feelings on it rather than mine.



Its not about taking someones opinion to "heart". Its about getting an insight in others opinions. There is no shame in learning about things from other people. If I don't like something and someone is able to convince me to like it with strong arguments then I will probably end up liking it and for good reason.  





> Objective metrics that are still based on things that can be entirely subjective.* The only "true objective metrics" are things of a technical level, like in-story continuity and not having camera men show up in the background, and those do not determine the actual quality of the story.*
> 
> Art needs heart not machine perfection.



They can determine the actual quality of the movie though.





> Yet, all false dichotomy's typically harbor some truth or known bias. A person who quites smoking just has to either start smoking again or switch to some other addiction. That is also a false dichotomy but it does happen nonetheless. You could say it's a self-fulfilling prophecy but there's too many people with too much of a difference in experience to say that.
> 
> True, if something has something objective in it, it can considered objective but if it also has something subjective it can be considered just that as well.
> 
> *You opted for a middle-area. I opted to go of the way of choosing whichever one felt more prominent to me; in this case the subjective parts.*



And I think that is where our disagreement lies and if you think about; we aren't really disagreeing about much.




> Not exactly the best analogy because popularity does not actually deal with how good something might be considered. It just deals with how many people actually like it. It could be something boring or terrible but if a lot of people like it others will just go along with it as well, especially if the one's who like it are notable, famous, or charismatic.
> 
> That's how clicks and large fanbases are formed. It gives people something to talk and relate about. The object of adoration does not have to be anything special.



My analogy had nothing to do with determining quality via popularity. 

"Soccer is the most popular sport" ---> an objective statement even though popularity is ultimately subjective. The definition though allows for an objective statement.

"There will be blood is a masterpiece" --> an objective statement IF masterpiece is defined via critical reception.


----------



## Muk (Jan 20, 2014)

"SELL ME THIS PEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

a life lesson learned. Gonna damn well use it for my next interview!


----------



## PureWIN (Jan 21, 2014)

Fun movie, but I really felt Ending Fatigue after 140 minutes. Comedy gold, but too long.


----------



## Lord Yu (Jan 21, 2014)

I laughed my ass off through the movie. It was long but I barely felt it. (Except in my bladder)


----------



## Mider T (Jan 21, 2014)

Did anybody see the interview with the real Jordan Belfort on Piers Morgan?


----------



## Ciupy (Jan 21, 2014)

This movie was incredible.

I haven't laughed that hard since..a long,long time.

The people portrayed are horrible,horrible human beings,but funny as shit.


----------



## eluna (Jan 24, 2014)

What a movie!!!9/10 I laugh so much,I don't even get tired until the end,was the best way to give away 3 hours of my live and the end was epic I never gonna see the pens with same way


----------



## Crowe (Jan 25, 2014)

I really liked it even though it was really long, the only thing I disliked what the end of it even though I know it's based on Belfort's memoir. I'm glad it went directly into the coke on ass scene in the beginning because you knew what to expect from the rest of the movie.


----------



## Tony Lou (Jan 26, 2014)

Anyone that says this movie doesn't promote that sort of life because the protagonist faces the consequences in the end is wrong.

He truly doesn't. 


*Spoiler*: __ 



Just a few years of jail time and then writing a best-seller. Drug abuse magically doesn't kill anyone either.


----------



## PureWIN (Jan 26, 2014)

Luiz said:


> Anyone that says this movie doesn't promote that sort of life because the protagonist faces the consequences in the end is wrong.
> 
> He truly doesn't.
> 
> ...



To make it worse, we watched the movie based off his best-seller, enjoyed it, and now he is reaping in cash from the profits.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 26, 2014)

Some people have just got "it".:/

And to the people complaining it was too long, it's a Scorsese movie...what were you expecting?  I like how Jonah Hill agreed to do the movie with the lowest amount of pay the SAG would allow.


----------



## Speedy Jag. (Jan 26, 2014)

I don't think it'll be a masterpiece looking back at it or inside the top 10 of all time (It may get top 100 billing tho) It's just a well done piece of cinema that entertained me all the way through.

The end was a touch limp (Am I the only one who doesn't think it's a Leo movie without him dying?) but the unscrupulous company storytelling and the funny escapades they got involved in was a great watch.

Worth another watch for a laugh I feel.


----------



## Tony Lou (Jan 26, 2014)

GUYS...


----------

