MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Trailer: The Wolf Of Wall Street (10/29 trailer)

Be Sociable, Share!

21 Responses to “Trailer: The Wolf Of Wall Street (10/29 trailer)”

  1. johnrieber says:

    That is an aggressive trailer – “Wall Street Goodfellas”! Leo seems willing to put it all out there for Scorsese – will have to see it to know if it’s really a contender, but there is room for it to run with the big dogs…

  2. Etguild2 says:


    Here’s my theory on Scorsese’s fimography: his early, creative, totally off-the-wall at the time genius which should have won him an Oscar on several different occasions, culminated with “Goodfellas,” in which he was woefully passed up. I think it affected him. After “Cape Fear” (which was in production when “Goodfellas” was on the awards circuit), he settled for more than a decade of movies with ambitious subjects and conventional narratives–“The Age of Innocence,” “Kundun,” and “The Aviator,”…even “Gangs of New York,” felt like attempts to tackle prime Oscar-worthy genres/subjects that hadn’t been done before without straying too far outside conventionality in a narrative or aesthetic sense. “Casino” and “The Departed” felt like upping the ante on previous work in search of…well…

    Since the Oscar, he has seemingly abandoned several similarly baity subjects–“The Rise of Teddy Roosevelt,” a Sinatra biopic, and a “Revolutionary Road” type domestic drama that I can’t remember the name of—for far more interesting and outside the box fare. “Shutter Island,” “Hugo,” this gonzo looking Wall Street piece…and next, A MOVIE ABOUT JESUIT PRIESTS IN 17th CENTURY JAPAN WHICH I CANNOT FUCKING WAIT FOR.

    It all seems like he feels free, again, after “The Departed” win. Or maybe that’s my imagination. “Kundun” looks as interesting as “Silence” does on paper, but I can’t help thinking the latter will be quite a bit more ambitious.

  3. Captain Celluloid says:

    I realize this could be considered heresy . . . . and I certainly like Scorsese

    . . . . but this does not look all that great . . . narratively or photographically.

    I’m sure Scorsese will ultimately make it some kind of interesting but . . . . .
    it sure seems all over the place right now.

    . . . and the look of it is not exactly stimulating . . . . shot digital with anamorphic lenses [ I wonder why the new found love for anamorphic lenses . . . . . especially OLD and SOFT and HARSH anamorphic lenses.

    I’m sure Marty is going for something specific with the look but . . . . .

    Now HUGO just looked AMAZING period . . . . . would be nice if Marty would shoot with Bob RIchardson again . . . . or how about Roger Deakins again . . . . please.

    Frustrating trailer . . . . . I hope it ends up good . . . . . .

  4. movieman says:

    Now that Paramount is essentially (and finally) admitting, “Yeah, it’s a
    comedy. Wanna make something about it?,” does anybody really think “WOWS” has a serious shot at major Oscars? (Despite being a, y’know, EPIC two hour and forty-five minute comedy.)
    Even GG has slotted it into their Comedy/Musical category.
    Really makes you wonder why they were so determined to get this out before year’s end.

  5. MarkVH says:

    Movieman, the nominations are the thing, and I think Paramount’s banking on some performance noms and at a Best Pic nod at the very least. It won’t win, but if it plays, there’s no reason to think it can’t score strong business based on the nominations alone.

  6. movieman says:

    It’s so strange, Mark.
    A few months ago “WOWS” was the victim of pernicious, downright poisonous buzz.
    Now it’s the movie–the “Epic Comedy”–Paramount just had to release before the awards deadline expired.
    Puzzling to say the least.
    Methinks the multiplex performances will be as much of a sausage-fest Xmas week as “Django” was last Festivus.

  7. lazarus says:

    Etguild, I have to disagree with some of your points about Scorsese post-GoodFellas. Kundun may be structured chronologically and over a long period of time like a conventional biopic, but aesthetically I find it to be pretty daring, especially in the compositions. And, you know, if he was aiming for big prizes, he probably would have gone with a more traditional film scorer than Philip Glass.

    As for The Age Of Innocence, there’s more visual experimentation there than in GoodFellas or Cape Fear. The irises combined with audio “zoom ins”, the removal of frames (e.g. the opening opera scene), and a use of various fades and dissolves not common to his work. It’s a movie about frustration and I can’t imagine he thought it would go down easy for most Academy members, even the costume drama fans. Which explains why a pedigreed film with an Oscar-winning actor and two hot stars based on a classic failed to get many nominations like the recent Merchant Ivory favorites in previous years (Howard’s End, Remains of the Day).

    Gangs was a long-gestating project so I don’t think him finally finding a way to get it made is indicative of an Oscar bait capitulation.

    The one film that fits your argument is The Aviator, a project he didn’t originate, doing it as a favor to DiCaprio. But again, if he was really aiming for Oscar gold, he wouldn’t have made such an abrasive film. For all its prestige trappings, it doesn’t go down smoothly either, and is downright WEIRD at times. The hotel room scene with the piss bottles? Come on, Academy voters subconsciously disqualified it right there in favor of Eastwood’s cartoonish sap. You want to talk about an Oscar whore, look at his career instead. Mystic River, J. Edgar, Iwo Jima, etc.

  8. Etguild2 says:

    Hmm good points. I still think however, his recent choices and styles are noticeably less conventional and more risky than his pre-Departed slate of movies.

  9. movielocke says:

    crowded season, no wonder Monuments Men got the fuck out.

  10. Tuck Pendleton says:

    I love Scorsese, and have seen all of his movies.

    But I’d say MOST of his movies are somewhat bloated. Few exceptions, I know, but Gangs, Aviator, Hugo, Shutter Island, are all WAY too long.

    That’s my only hesitation. But yeah, sure. I’m in.

  11. lazarus says:

    Gangs wasn’t long ENOUGH. If it has a pacing problem, that’s due to Harvey’s demands to shorten it and Marty/Thelma being unable to make it work at that length.

    I love the film anyway, but it certainly has its flaws in that regard.

  12. Chris Lux says:

    It looks like a bad remake of Boiler Room.

  13. PcChongor says:


    Which itself was just a bad remake of “Glengarry Glen Ross.”

  14. movieman says:

    It looks like a bad remake of Boiler Room.

    Which itself was just a bad remake of “Glengarry Glen Ross.”

    And to the best of my recollection, neither of those films were pitched as comedies.
    I love Scorsese as much as anyone, but he’s never had a particularly light comedic touch. (“After Hours” excepting, and even that was pretty damn dark.)

  15. LexG says:

    This is going to rule everything ever. Can’t BELIEVE anyone would ever naysay Scorsese, WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO? Only Lazarus ever knows what’s up when it comes to Scorsese.

    You guys can have your little 3.5-star, very good, solidly-crafted Gravity and 12 Years, neither comes close to being even TOP TEN in this great year.

    This is going to be the best. The Best.


  16. Slothrop says:

    How anyone can look at this and not be insanely excited is beyond me. There’s an VITALITY to Scorsese that put all his contemporaries to shame.

    Also: something about how di Caprio does the “cause I ain’t going nowheeeere!”-line that just destroys.

  17. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    Totes Slothrop.
    Best trailer of the year. Hands down.
    Anyone want to go back and watch that stinking American Hustle trailer again? Yeah thought so.

  18. Hcat says:

    If I was releasing Walter Mitty my stomach would have dropped when the news came that this was moving to this date

  19. leahnz says:

    it’s nice to see leo in comedic form – at least it’s something different for him – but there’s something about this that looks so disappointingly…’cliche’ is maybe the word, trying a little too hard to sell its frenetic wacky wares — interesting that movieman mentions ‘after hours’ (one of my all-time fave movies ever), that being such a genre-bending witches brew of psychological black comedy, paranoia, surrealism and absurdist situational humour (even brief touches of horror), one of the few movie classics ever to pull off such a mad combination (landis’ ‘american werewolf in london’ another genre-bending classic that comes to mind), yet this trailer looks so by-the-numbers it has me hoping it’s a bit of misdirection by the marketing dept and scorsese has again tried his hand at something a little deeper and more off kilter and bizarre than this – or even the other trailers – suggests

  20. Chucky says:

    While y’all beat your meat in a circle jerk, you don’t see the obvious.

    The Academy Award fetish screams Hard Sell! Hard Sell! Hard Sell! Such is among the many reasons why the movie industry is in a terminal decline as far as the wider culture.

  21. cadavra says:

    Yeah, Scorsese movies are certainly the death knell of cinema.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon