FilmGamer

Poorly paced obvious film. It's the worst movie Leonardo DiCaprio has ever made. Bad wigs, unfunny bad CGI, the movie has zero intelligent points to raise yet smugly wants credit for pointing out how big media ruins our life. It is such a waste of resources its basically the thing it criticizes.

The Wolf of Wall Street is funny, coming from the much respected Martin Scorsese, a director I appreciate more and more as I get older it comes as a bit of a surprise. It's never meant to be taken too seriously, so if you're in the mood for something heavy and dark in subject matter and mixed with equal parts laughs humour, I have 3 hours for you to spend at the cinema. It doesn't really deserve any Oscar consideration (not that it matters), but it is a very well made film that will continue to exist, so you might as well sit down and enjoy it before it gets shoved in your face by the end of awards season.

Leonardo DiCaprio gives a wonderfully physical performance that is a lot more over the top than anything he's done before, you still never forget you're watching DiCaprio, as is with Jonah Hill, but because their off- screen chemistry comes together on-screen there are no complaints in the acting category, though a nice bit of observation. In playing Jordan Belfort in his 24-36 year old period, it feels like the first time the baby-faced actor is playing too young. The Hollywood golden boy is finally showing physical signs of having grown up. This isn't something I'd dock the movie for, rather I see it as a positive indicator for DiCaprio's career arc.

The only major complaint I would have about the film overall is that in being 3 hours of self-indulgence, and Scorsese and company being very aware of the themes of excess running throughout Jordan Belfort's life, the film almost doesn't feel worth the time the audience spends involved. It's a filmmaking paradox, which means it achieves it own means sometimes at the audiences' expense. This in turn is a major crime, that like the whole of the film and point of it, doesn't prove to be a major consequence.

Rating: B/ +2

"The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" is an okay movie, some nice fantastical elements, quite overlong, but provides great escapism. It is held back from greatness by wrapping its story around arguably the most pointless trilogy ever manufactured by large scale cinema and comfortably dawdling in the shadow of another great franchise it should only occasionally pay homage to.

Before I continue I will say that the only Middle earth lore that I have read is the prologue "Concerning Hobbits, and other matters" from "The Fellowship of the Ring". I am strictly a film fan of the series, and my opinion of watching "The Journey Begins" was that it felt like a bit of a drag. Going into this installment knowing that the four screenwriters had written some original material outside of Tolkien's novels to go along with the movie got me a bit excited. I have to say I was a bit let down, it seemed like the filmmakers weren't really challenging themselves here.

Getting my general complaint out of the way quickly is that at this point the series feels formulaic. — "Where's Bilbo?" Bilbo shows up, demonstrates courage, saves the day, cue Howard Shore's gently uplifting recycled Oscar winning score. None of the die-hard fans or at least the kind that represents the vocal minority on the internet seem to really be bothered by the way in which this adaptation is being treated into 3 somewhat-mediocre films rather than a singular focused masterpiece, and I don't blame them for wanting to stay in this richly drawn world for as long as possible, but for the filmmakers who are even fans themselves, I would ask for more quality over quantity.

Here is Warner Brothers, sitting on a pile of money.

My older brother pointed out to me once while watching "King Kong" that he thought director Peter Jackson seemed to rely a bit too much on CGI. I for one here would initially think that with "The Hobbit" aimed towards a less gritty adult style than "Lord of the Rings", the CGI would serve the lighter tone of the film better, but in the manner it's done here it comes across as lazy and inconsistent, with occasionally sub-par CGI used on some orcs (or parts of them) and not others it serves as a distraction.

Speaking of distractions every single callback to the "The Lord of the Rings" that lasts more than a few seconds ruins the pacing and tone of the movie by getting in the way of the main plot, which I'm aware of but not quite as clear as I should be on. Fan-service doesn't serve a film very well when you refer to a brewing yet rather unrelated conflict that the audience knows was already solved in another film series a decade ago next Tuesday. Funnily enough for some reason, I didn't think the time-keeping in Middle Earth followed the Gregorian calendar.

The screenplay for the film is a slight weak point, as it takes its time understandably it doesn't develop the dwarfs in any interesting or compelling way to justify its running time. There are sparks of interest that lie in each of the supporting characters but it is left at that. For Tolkien fans I suppose that'll do, since I imagine what was or was not presented in books was properly left to the imagination, but here much of what is feels like a waste or a wasted opportunity. I can't quite remember the names of all the dwarfs but considering the amount of screen time they've had so far you'd think they'd talk about something interesting other than the journey. These are the most focused characters I have ever seen on screen, five and a half hours in and they haven't bothered to really let themselves or the audience get to know one another.

Maybe its because they were as taken aback by the sheer spectacle of Middle Earth as I was. The action in the film is more varied and plentiful than it was in the last film but of course much is still saved for the finale, and with a high production value I understand why Peter Jackson doesn't want to leave, the whole thing looks like a soft coloured painting. The scenery is brightly lit and beautiful, such a visually resplendent treat that it makes sense to sit and take it in, not for 2 hours and forty one minutes though. A little precious indulgence now and then isn't too hurtful, but it can lead to audience neglect and unintentionally boring periods of desolation.