The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

4.9/5

Martin Scorsese's The Wolf of Wall Street is a riveting, sensational film by a master storyteller. The movie follows a young trader named Jordan Belfort (DiCaprio) who quickly rises to the top by starting his own firm and using manipulative sales tactics to sell high-risk stocks with large profit margins. Along the way, he engages in reckless behavior (mostly drugs) and revels in excess (million dollar parties on his million dollar yacht) while being chased down by the SEC and FBI (Chandler).

Scorsese uses frenetic filmmaking to show us his vices in all their glorious detail, combining fast editing with long shots to tell exactly the story he wants to tell. And he fully embraces the idea of storytelling, reminding you who is narrating and what their motives are: whether through a Porsche changing from red to white mid-shot, "thought bubbles" between Belfort and his Swiss banker (Dujardin), or re-editing his stories in retrospect. Scorsese is so convincing, so compelling, that it's hard to think trading is not normally like this.

Here Scorsese is dealing in his own trade. Both Scorsese as a filmmaker and DiCaprio as Belfort sell their audience, bit by bit, on why their product is not only good, but necessary. They are able to create demand out of thin air. And that is why Scorsese is the best at what he does. Quite honestly, Scorsese can make a movie about anything and make it enthralling, engaging, and explosive. Here he does it again.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0993846/

Hugo (2011)

5/5

Martin Scorsese's Hugo is pure magic. Its conception and creation were very clearly labors of love by exquisitely talented craftsmen. The story begins with a boy, Hugo (Butterfield), who lives in a train station. He is caught stealing gears from a toy shop owned by Papa Georges (Kingsley), who forces him to empty his pockets. Among the stolen goods is a notebook that was given to him by his late father (Law). The drawings in the notebook seem to bring back unwanted memories for Papa Georges, who threatens to burn it and report the boy to the station master (Baron Cohen). He follows Papa Georges home, pleading with his eyes, and waits outside the house until he sees Papa George's niece (Moretz). Hugo enlists her help and they soon find themselves on an adventure that grows beyond their wildest imagination.

I know the book on which this movie is based has a lot of illustrations, so I can't give Scorsese all the credit for its visual power, but boy does this movie pack a punch. The story is told in images, with snippets of silent film interspersed with inspiration from Hitchcock's Rear Window. And it is an emotional roller coaster, juxtaposing the kind of pure sorrow and exhilaration as only a child could experience. It combines complex characters with expressive acting to tremendous effect. The energetic pacing complements the classic storytelling structure, thanks in no small part to Thelma Schoonmaker's efficient editing. Even the 3D technology was well-done. I know that because it did not give me a headache. (Whether a 3D movie gives me a headache is really my only criterion now for how good the 3D is--Avatar is the only other movie to have good 3D by these standards.)

Not all is perfect in this movie, but its flaws are easily overlooked. I have no doubt that the special effects used in this movie will one day look as dated and comical as King Kong or The Birds. But for now, they're passable. Also, the side characters are somewhat poorly developed. There are hints at uniqueness and charm--and the atmosphere itself is already filled to the brim with wonder and awe--but the side characters never get fully fleshed-out. Jean-Pierre Jeunet would have perhaps been a better choice to breathe life into the subplots and side stories, as he did in Amélie and Delicatessen.

This film succeeds on all fronts: as entertainment, as art, and as heartfelt nostalgia for cinema. Go into the movie knowing nothing and you will be surprised and delighted. Go into the movie a second time and I am certain you will still be profoundly shaken. That is the mark of good storytelling, and that is the mark of phenomenal filmmaking.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0970179/

Shutter Island (2010)

5/5

Martin Scorsese's Shutter Island is everything I didn't know I wanted. It is beautiful, uplifting, disturbing, sad, and compelling. It may not be what you expect the movie to be, but it is everything that a movie should be. The plot follows US Marshalls Teddy Daniels (DiCaprio) and Chuck Aule (Ruffalo) on Shutter Island, home to a prison for the criminally insane. A patient has gone missing, having apparently evaporated through the walls of her cell, and they are tasked with finding her. They are welcomed by unhelpful security guards and menacing psychiatrists (Kingsley, von Sydow). They dig deeper and deeper into the mysteries of the island--the fortified Ward C for the most dangerous patients, the solitary lighthouse surrounded by an electric fence--but the truth just barely eludes them at every turn.

The movie is not typical in any sense of the word. It bears some resemblance to noir in thematics and cinematics, but it uses blinding whites instead of pitch blacks. It shows us his traumatic past in fragmented visuals instead of linear storytelling. Its labyrinthine mysteries take on new dimensions in the physical, mental, and spiritual realms. The visuals are reminiscent of Kubrick's The Shining, but the traditional Hollywood horror aspect is muted to allow the unnerving psychological dysfunction to haunt us. It tugs us between pity and awe, hatred and sympathy, for the ill patients and their past acts. It asks us how we would treat them. And then it flips everything on its head and asks us all those same questions again.

This is a movie where the acting complicates the written characters in the best possible way. This is not a simple movie, and none of the personas within it are simple either. They are alive and breathing. And they hide secrets from the camera that we are never meant to know. The editing is equally complex: it takes flashbacks to a new level and it does so with simplicity and expert craft instead of gimmicks and CGI. This film shows a director, an actor, and an editor all at the top of their form. And I hope they just keep getting better and better.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1130884/

Raging Bull (1980)

5/5

Martin Scorsese's Raging Bull is a true masterpiece, one that asks hard questions and gives no easy answers. Shot in gritty black and white, it tells the true story of boxer Jake La Motta's rise to stardom and eventual disappearance from the limelight. Watching it a second time, I found the film surprisingly noir. Here we have a man fated for self-destruction, unable to control his excessive temper and inhuman jealousy. We have a tragic antihero, a flawed man whose rage grants him success in the ring and ensures his downfall outside of it. We witness a filthy, vulgar underground; we are awash in blood and sweat and raw anger. It is an experience we will never forget.

What everyone remembers when they first see this movie is De Niro's undeniably skilled portrayal of La Motta. And for good reason--it is a powerful, gripping performance. Some have zeroed in on Pesci's equally talented acting job, and one equally worthy of praise. But what I cannot get out of my mind after this viewing is Thelma Schoonmaker's brilliant editing and Scorsese's unerring cinematic eye. Together, they are simply on a level all their own. The overarching structure reveals just as much as the content therein. The camera movements, the decision to film in long takes or quick cuts, are crucial to our experience of it. We remember snapshots in time, we remember the shift of conversations, of moments in time, and of changes in emotions because the techniques employed are subtle and subconscious. The sheer technical bravado on display is jaw-dropping. It is through the editing and cinematography that we truly live this movie, that it takes on realism that few other movies have been able to replicate. As I said before, it is an experience we will never forget.

To watch this movie is to submit yourself to a terrifying worldview, to violence in the ring and abuse in the home, to unwarranted jealousy in the face of true fidelity, to paranoia that can forever damage family ties, and to the fears of inadequacy. To a man who desparately wants to change and cannot. This movie is effective at bypassing your mental defenses, which makes it all the more difficult to sit through. It plays with time, color, and words, seemingly innocently but ultimately to devastating effect. The few short moments filmed in color we see happiness; these fleeting memories occur in the midst of pain and destruction. Is it to punish us or to encourage us? And at the end, is there redemption? You must watch this movie and determine the answers for yourself. For me, I cannot recommend it enough.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081398/

Bringing Out The Dead (1999)

3/5

Bringing Out The Dead follows Frank Pierce, a paramedic in New York's Hell's Kitchen who hasn't saved anyone in several months and has become haunted by ghosts of those he lost, for three of the busiest days of the year. The cinematography is absolutely breathtaking. There is one extremely surreal sequence in wintertime, with snow falling upwards, that is almost too powerful. The visual imagery throughout was awe-inspiring. The editing was brilliant as well. The intro credit sequence was the best part about the movie, although it set my expectations impossibly high for the rest of the piece to follow. The music throughout was exceptional at setting and maintaining mood. Without the music, the movie would be a completely different experience--a much worse experience.

The exotic cast of characters, while played extremely well by more than capable actors, felt a bit too exaggerated for my tastes. (Also, every time I saw Marc Anthony on screen, I thought of Johnny Depp.) It seemed as if Scorsese didn't know whether the film should speak to us on a dramatic level or a surrealist level, so he did both. The result is an uneven movie that doesn't quite satisfy. On another note, I wasn't too keen on the depiction of the paramedics and people in the health profession overall--they all just seemed insane. And I felt a lot of the dialogue and voice-over narration was stale, uninspired, and just plain boring. Also, the stock plot conflict and resolution was predictable and painfully simple/bad. Whatever. It's a Scorsese picture, so you gotta see it. And for the quality of the cinematography, editing, and music you've come to expect in his pictures, you won't be disappointed.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0163988/

The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)

4.9/5

The Last Temptation of Christ is a powerful fictional account of the human nature of Jesus; his wants, his fears, and his temptations. The music was amazing, and an absolutely perfect fit from start to finish. The most cinematically lush scenes I found were when the camera rapidly and unexpectedly went over the edge of a cliff, the aggregation of followers in the desert, and the raising of the cross. (I know there are many more that I'm ignoring.) Though there were numerous stunning images and ideas presented (not the least of which being the titular final temptation), I personally found the most powerful one to be the possibility that even without Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection, Paul still spreads the gospel exactly the same as if that had taken place. Did Jesus need to die if we believe it all anyway? The other striking feature of this movie is the mesmerizing and sympathetic image of Judas that is painted. He is a man who makes arguably the bigger sacrifices by agreeing to betray Jesus so that Jesus could die and save mankind.

--"If you were me, could you betray your master?"
--"No. That is why I got the easier job. To be crucified."

I don't know what it was about it, but some of the filmmaking had a very 80's feel to it. The dialogue was a mix between natural speech and epic monologuing. Sometimes it flowed well from one to the other, but often it was a jarring disjunct that took me away from the movie. There seemed to be some unnecessary slow parts and some flashy but ultimately empty scenes. It also seems as if Scorsese went out of his way to show the inhabitants of the gospels as dirtier, more violent, and more extremist for the sole purpose of challenging your Sunday school interpretations. The subject matter limits the audience to the devout but questioning Christian, and the length limits the audience even further to only the most interested. But if you fit within that very select group, you will find an astounding film to watch, analyze, and remember.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0095497/

The Departed (2006)

5/5

I just came back from seeing The Departed with Jed, Sameer, and Amar. This movie is phenomenal. It is a return to the genre the great master reinvented. I had ridiculously high expectations for this movie, and they were surpassed. It has the flash and fun of GoodFellas and Casino mixed in with the intensity and subtlety of Taxi Driver and Raging Bull. This is the zenith of entertainment in art. This is why you watch movies.

First off, the characters are the most unique, off-the-wall screen presences I can remember. The acting is so absolutely amazing that they are actually able to pull this off. The colors, style, and subtlety pervaded every shot and scene that to list off each memorable part of the movie would be to describe every second of it. The script is consistently funny, the violence sudden and shocking, and the subtext omnipresent. Watch it if you want to enjoy a good time, or if you want to analyze it as cinematic art. Just watch it.

The introductory scenes were so bizarre; it looked like an abundance of b footage spliced together randomly. I feel like Scorsese didn't really have a vision for how he wanted the beginning to look. I might be wrong though. And after the first ten minutes, I was so absorbed in the movie that I couldn't generate any more fictitious reasons like the one above to not love the movie. In fact, why am I writing this review and not seeing it again?

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0407887/