One of the greatest Directors of our time, the master of the Hollywood spectacular and original Hollywood film idol cinephiles around the world, which gave a start in life an entire galaxy of good actors, etc. etc., finally created a movie for which I write grey ryotsu. Say: Scorsese are a half dozen films that I don’t like, just these movies never provoked me to the reviews. But “Wolf” has provoked. Wade, after all. But Rotz came out gray.
“Wolf”, the most intemperate, the most “immoral” (or, rather, unmorally) and the unhealthy exaggerated Scorsese film, was also the most profitable in his career. Assorted misanthropes-shopengauera there would plenty to philosophize about the present times and manners. But we will not: not the point.
It turned out that the Director is trying not to age heart and to walk in the forefront of world cinema, suddenly appeared in his rear, by copying himself twenty years ago. “Wolf” is essentially a remake of the movie “Casino” moved from trendy deserts of Las Vegas in the upscale neighborhoods of new York. The duration of the same favorite Martin the eighties, only instead of the mafia rich marks and now they rule brokers-addicts on wall Street. Femme fatale is Sharon stone femme fatale Margot Robbie. Instead of some prostitutes to other prostitutes. Instead of family squabbles, de Niro, DiCaprio family squabbles. Instead of a pile of money lots of money even more. Instead of smuggling jewel smuggling of cash. Finally, in both films the action culminated in mass raids performed by FBI agents. Skopipastit and General line Casino: we had it all, but we “all” have successfully blown. And in “Casino” and “Wolf” a thought is heard by a record number of obscene expletives, more than 600 in each film counting good people. There are, however, some differences: the bloody showdown in the Vegas lads replaced unbridled sex wolves of wall Street. Still, “Casino” is a film about the mafia and “Wolf” is about hedonism.
I’m not going to argue that secondary “Wolf” kills. Of course, it is not. It is quite spectacular. If the essence of any art is not in moralizing, but to give the emotions, the picture Scorsese completely this fact is responsible. It is full of brand scorseses drive, sometimes completely turned off. She leaves no one indifferent. Wolf, I think, this is another materialization of personal (not author’s) bias Scorsese: the depiction of masculinity in all its excesses. From the movie a mile brings wealth and a beautiful life, but Scorsese admires wealth, not kompleksuya to him, as ersatz analysts Pelevin and Sorokin: he admires because it is also an excess of masculinity. Male characters, as usual with Scorsese, a day to remember. And DiCaprio, in the end, learned to play. But the image of women not the horse Director, I can’t get them as deep and bright as men. Although the last sex scene of the hero and his wife are very truthful in their psychology.
Throw in some observations. Monologue Macconachie about Masturbation wild example of the unscientific nonsense, which cannot be taken seriously, and which is similar to a thick trolling. Quite a lot of funny places. In particular, the “antler” suit for $ 3,000. Amuse not the suit itself, and the fact that the hero specifically voiced its price, as an indicator of success. But, seriously, the viewer, after all these rich mansions, sports cars, yachts, mountains of money and tons of cocaine in the amount of $ 3,000 is simply not impressive. Well and to a heap: if the most memorable scene of the film scene drug of coming, it’s sad. Because when the effect of the drug passes, the emptiness remains. Here in “Wolf” when all this ends with a furious drive, the emptiness remains, and some absolutely deafening.
Maybe Scorsese with all this (anti)glamour corny late. As a kind of Jordan Belfort from his memories, no doubt, embellished. For me, the “Wolf” is a leap back in time. And we need new forms, new shapes…