24 February 2014

The Dreams Of The People Live On

There are certain films which, like the genitals of an old French whore, should be left untouched. If anybody remade a classic like Casablanca then they'd effectively be condemning themselves to that section of Hell where angry geeks spend an eternity pissing fire into their victims’ eyes whilst crying. For some people, The Wizard of Oz is one of those 'untouchable films' with the original being very close to their probably-quite-camp hearts. Personally I only got around to seeing it last year which by coincidence ended up being the same week that Thatcher snuffed it and the song 'Ding Dong the Witch Is Dead' made an amusing appearance in the charts. I really enjoyed the film though and could more than see everything that was great about it from the iconic set design to the ambiguous reality and particularly the brave choice of having a sociopath as the lead character. Seriously, watch it again and pay attention to just how many times Dorothy kills and how little a shit she gives about it. She fucks people up whilst expressing all the concern of a retarded cabbage with empathy issues and a historically awful upbringing.

Despite enjoying the film though I suppose I probably admired it more than I actually loved it. Therefore when I heard about the prequel, Oz The Great And Powerful I really wasn't too arsed either way. As far as I'm concerned, there's a load of books in that series to draw from and there's already been a few other crappy movies to taint the legacy as it is. Directed by Geek God Sam Raimi, this new addition aimed to tell the journey of Oz, the Wizard from the original, as he goes from being a barebones nobody to the fraudster leader of a bullshit world. Of course, like anybody with eyes, I'm a huge fan of Raimi's and would more than donate a few hours of my life to experience anything that sprang from his demented mind. However like the extra bollock in an already crowded nutsack there was something about this film that worried me. From the moment it was announced as being a big budget update of an old classic, and particularly by Disney, I'm sure I can't be the only person to get flashbacks to Tim Burtons Alice in Wonderland... which at our politest I'm sure we all remember as being a massive lump of shit.

"I hope to fuck this isn't Wonderland..."
This film begins during the dark days of 1905 as a giant storm rips through the monochrome grimness of a dustbowl Kansas. Oz is a selfish cock who performs rubbish magic shows to mostly empty seats whilst treating his only friend like shit and trying to shag any woman that dares to have tits. After unsuccessfully trying to chat up the wrong girl, her boyfriend chases after Oz causing him to make the logical decision of jumping into a hot air balloon and flying straight into a tornado. So although he might not have managed to have sex that day at least he can still claim to have been sucked off...  also, I know that's an awful joke but fuck you. Anyway, after surviving the ordeal he crash lands in the mysterious world of Oz which is currently enduring a three way power struggle between three controlling witches. Obviously he's got to defeat them or at least the two evil ones... because you know... God help us be subjected to an original story! However there is at least some degree of mystery because although we know he does succeed thanks to this being a prequel, we also know that he doesn't kill them. That's for crazy old Dorothy and her blank faced murder spree later on. So I guess the tension isn't about how Oz will kill his adversaries but more about how will he outsmart them. Also I know that Oz the man shares his name with Oz the world he ends up in but I guess that just a coincidence. Kind of like if Paris Hilton crashed in the city of Paris, Orlando Bloom crashed in the city of Orlando or Rip Torn crashed in the vagina of Lindsey Lohan. Urgh... that's two bad jokes in one over-long paragraph... Fuck you again!

So if I was worried about this being reminiscent of that shitty Tim Burton film then the opening few minutes didn't exactly put me at ease. I know Danny Elfman has worked with Raimi a lot too but because he's a musical slut, his work and sound is surely mostly associated with Burton's movies? Well I think so anyway. I actually already tried to watch Oz The Great And Powerful a day earlier but it just put me in the mood for Big Fish so I ended up switching it off with the plan of watching that instead. I didn't in the end because I got distracted by a row with my stepmum but the point still stands. Also she's a bitch. Anywho, the Burton references don't just end there as they also pretty much look like they're set in the same world too. Every so often, Franco's Oz would turn a corner to which I half expected him to find a ginger Johnny Depp performing the futterwacken. Fact fans might be interested to know that the literal translation of Futterwacken is 'to make a twat of oneself'. That's a lie but whatever... Both films also take two classic films and then annoyingly build them up to a final showdown in which armies are expected to clash. And in both cases the promise of that battle sounded about as exciting as trying to toss off to a broken egg timer whilst wearing oven gloves and crying.

On the bright side though, there is one key difference between Raimi and Burton’s two films and it's that Raimi's isn't shit. It's one of those movies that lives in the bland world... never offensive and always teasing the satisfaction of something better. Although because that satisfaction never comes I guess this is really the cinematic equivalent of 'blue ball'. Also, as much as it has aspects that are similar to one of Burton’s more piss poor efforts, it also has traces that stand this apart as very definitely a Raimi film. For a start there's its love of classic cinema, slapstick and a noticeable use of kinetic, comic book style camera movements. Oh and of course there's also the traditional cameo from Bruce Campbell who is this time buried under a layer of prosthetics so thick that it was only thanks to his fuck-off chin that I recognised him. Oh and if that wasn't enough I suppose there's also the small similarity between the plot of this movie and of Raimi's 1992 film Army of Darkness as they're near fucking identical.

Both Army of Darkness and Oz The Great And Powerful begin when a man accidentally travels from our world to a fantasy one. The hero also instantly starts a kind of relationship with a woman who, spoiler alert- turns evil as the film progresses. Although I guess that's the logical conclusion of most relationships to be fair... In both movies’ cases, the main character is also kind of a cock whose charm can be found in their smugness and who seems to be the solution to an ancient prophecy that predicts peace for the land. Oh and there's an evil witch in each film with the two looking so similar that they could start a weekly support group with Mark Wahlberg and Matt Damon called, 'nobody can tell us apart'. On top of all that, the flying monkeys of Oz look remarkably similar to the flying deadites of Darkness. Although sadly Franco doesn't kill his souring simians by blowing their heads off with a bastard shotgun and then start screaming that everybody's a “primitive screwhead”.

Hail to the king, baby!
To kind of conclude, if you saw Jack The Giant Slayer then this is pretty much on par with that. Actually, if it wasn't quite so long it'd probably even be better. Oz the Great and Powerful isn't the Wonderland shaped shit stain on Raimi's filmography that many worried but nor was it worthy of his talents. In fact if you watched Army of Darkness and wished it was longer, child-friendly and smacked of studio guidelines then honestly you'll fucking love this! Kind of like Singer's Giant Slayer it's just one of those films that was alright but not worth sticking an extra two year delay on a great director making a film more worthy of them. If you loved the original Wizard of Oz then this won't rape your childhood- although at worst I suppose it's probably given it an inappropriate fondling.


17 February 2014

Disney's Tangled Values

Is it just me or is Disney going through a bit of a change? Having not seen a new animated Disney film for some time I wandered down to the cinema at Christmas to see Frozen. Turns out I really liked it. What I thought would be about a goofy snowman and a disabled moose was actually a classic-feeling Disney movie about princesses, power and how kindness prevails. As the film ended I felt happy and good about myself. The joy of seeing Frozen was as though I'd just slipped a happy pill under my eye and it'd dissolved straight into my bloodstream. Then I left the cinema and reality rushed back in, hitting me like a tidal wave of shit. I remembered that despite what Disney says the world is a horrible place and it is filled to the brim with horrible cunts. However, like a junkie looking for the next fix I decided that I wanted to see Tangled. I'd read reviews for Frozen and from what I could gather both films were critically well received but with the general consensus being that Tangled was the better of the two. For those who don't know Tangled is basically an adaptation of the classic fairytale Rapunzel but as filtered through the bollock-stained spectacles of Uncle Walt. Last night I managed to get around to seeing it for myself and to be honest... it was really good.

So to summarise Tangled... There's a magical healing flower that an old hag uses to keep herself youthful with by treating it to a wonderful singsong. This is despite not visibly doing anything interesting with the extra life she clings to... kind of like my nan. However one day a pregnant queen starts to die and so the flower is found, taken and turned into soup to save her. The result is that Rapunzel, her new born-baby has the plants healing abilities in her hair because... well because she just does. As the power is lost if the hair is cut, the old hag decides simply to just steal the baby which she somehow actually manages. A huge hunt for the child then takes place although to be honest, kidnapping isn't that easy. I'm almost of the opinion that if you can take something as heavily protected as a royal baby then fair play... call the hunt off. You've actually earned what you took! Anyway, the princess is kept hidden away in a tower where every so often the old hag sings to her hair which has now grown a hell of a lot! For eighteen years the girl is kept hidden before being accidentally found by a thief who she blackmails into taking her outside and on an adventure. So basically this is kind of like a Disney adaptation of the Fritzl story but with more slapstick hijinks and less new born babies being tossed into a furnace.

"Up my bum or not at all".
A lot of people seem to think that this film is a metaphor for a young girl losing her virginity and I don't think they're wrong. The way Rapunzel blackmails the thief is by hiding the crown that he's stolen, however after the two seem to fall in love she's worried that the moment she gives the loot back he'll disappear. So I guess people see the crown as being symbolic of her royal vagina with her worry being that his affection for her being faked just so he can get get to it. I can see why people would read the film that way but for me Tangled is also about something else... the pension crisis! I'm assuming everybody knows what that is but for the sake of padding the blog out I'll explain. Basically old people are refusing to die at the moment meaning that we've got to fund the pensions of more biddies than ever before. As a result, we younger people will be working until we drop as our own retirement age is pushed increasingly further away thanks to the strain on our already limited resources. Tangled is about an old woman whose refusal to die comes at the expense of a young girl who has sacrificed her own freedom for it, which sounds like the pension crisis to me!

Speaking of the villain, is it just me or does she look a hell of a lot like Cher? And now that I think about it, Cher too is obsessed with retaining a youthful appearance! I guess the difference is though that the woman in Tangled can use magic to preserve her complexion whereas poor old Cher has to staple back her skin and inject bits of her arse into her face. As a villain though, I really liked the Hag with her attempts at hiding the outside world to the Princess through half arsed expressions of fake love being quite amusing. I myself actually have a stepmum and so can more than relate to forced affection being a mask for sheer murderous contempt. Having said that it doesn't seem to take much to keep the girl locked up in the tower happy because for the most part she seems to be having a great time. Rapunzel frolics about her small room, whipping her hair about like a swing and talking to her Pascal the friendly chameleon with nothing but joy. Again speaking from experience if only the girl had also had things to play with like an Xbox or a dick perhaps then she'd have never wanted to leave her room at all.

It's odd really to see this and Frozen because like most humans I grew up on Disney films and yet haven't seen any in years. There's something nice to know that they're still kind of making the same sort of thing but updated for each generation. In the way that Aladdin feels like it was made in the 90's this too feels like a film from the 10's. I'm not sure why though... I'm guessing that the clue is in each decades updated style of animation and new characters that cater to the state of society. The female characters get more independent and feistier and the male characters get more insecure and emotional. Take the lead male here for example who seems to be riddled with a kind of contemporary cynicism to the point where his character traits are just an invention to hide his true self. In the past we could probably have taken his heroic bollocks at face value with him seeing the error of his ways as the story progressed. Here however everything about him is fake from his name to his smoulder as though his entire persona is metaphorical of the bullshit lives that we all fake on Facebook.

People accuse Disney of encouraging the idea of gender stereotypes which of course they do with their portrayal of princes and princesses reinforcing the clichés and presenting them to children. However surely if the world wants to be more androgynous then these two characters must be a slow step in the right direction? The only reason that the thief here acts how he does is because he's playing up to the image of masculinity that's thrust upon us and not because he's promoting it. There was some controversy with this film because it changed its title from Rapunzel to Tangled which some considered sexist. In Disney's defence though, they couldn't give a solitary fuck about being our moral compass if it comes at the cost of making a profit. They worried that by keeping the princesses name as a title it would put young boys off from wanting to see the film as had been the case with their previous effort The Princess and The Frog. I understand the dilemma but to me it seems like more of a vicious circle than a deliberate ploy. Disney only want to give the public what they want which will only serve to worsen the issue. If people stop paying then Disney will change their attitudes too and that's really all there is too it.

I understand that for some people gender stereotypes are a problem but for me personally there are a few other things that Disney movies do to infect my brain with even worse anger-lice than that. They are:-

  1. The way they reinforce the idea of happy endings. It's not that I don't believe in happy endings it's just that in reality they only ever occur at the end of a particularly wanky massage. Other than that, most lives consist of lies, loneliness and a sad, depressing death.

  1. The way they romanticise the idea of romance. The trouble I've had in the past because some girls believe in the idea of 'true love' and 'soul mates' has resulted in a bald patch on the chest hair above where my heart should be. I'm sure some guys have also been deluded by this heart shaped disease of the mind but as of yet I've not tried to pull them for it to be my problem. I just don't want you thinking that I think only women can fall for all that lovey-dovey bollocks. 

  1. The constant obsession with personifying animals. I am a fussy fucking eater as it is and I really hate vegetables and yet Disney keeps making my meals seem cute when they were alive. It's not that they're wrong about this by the way but it still makes me feel really fucking guilty every time I eat something that could once have been a main character in one of their films.

"I got you Babe".
Well spoiler alert from this point on... Tangled did have an annoyingly happy ending. Which was a huge shame because it was all going so well. The film started like American Beauty with the thief providing a voice over in which he explained that this story would end with his death. However rather than being shot in the fucking head by a confused gay guy he instead got the shit stabbed out of him by the old hag. Sadly though he didn't stay dead as Rapunzel's healing powers turned out to be more powerful than had previously been realised. Just when it looked like Disney was about to show some balls by having its lead male knifed to death it retracts them back in and pussies the hell out. By doing this it also continued to romanticise the idea of romance because her extra powers were only revealed when her love caused her to cry magical tears. I should mention that her hair had been cut at this point and so the idea of him being permanently dead seemed even more tantalisingly possible. I know that Disney couldn't explore the question of whether or not her remaining pubes where equally as magically but the tears were still fucking annoying. The two then got married and took over the kingdom without a single person wondering... if he'd died and then come back to life does that not make him a fucking zombie?

As for the personification of animals well that's also definitely true of Tangled too however in this films case it's a chameleon and a horse that have been humanized which is fine. I don't eat chameleons and I only ever eat horse when I'm buying cheap sausages from some dodgy supermarket and unknown to me they've blended a few up and chucked them in for fun. What was interesting I thought though with the horse is that like the reindeer from Frozen it also seems to have been cross bred with a dog. I don't know why they've done this but in both films cases the result was enjoyable amusing. However here if the horse is one third horse and one third dog then it's also seems to be one third Jim Carrey. Watch the things erratic, determined and spontaneous movements and you'll swear it must be the result of Ace Venture once having entered a horse in something... and I don't mean in race!! I mean its vagina as he fucked it...

At the end of the day though Tangled was still a really enjoyable film. Like I said, it's nothing too new but I suppose Disney's animated movies are a bit like the Bond franchise. They've got a formula to stick to with, the only challenge being to update it for each decade and ultimately just make a great new film. I think that on the face of it, Tangled was probably a better movie however I think personally I probably did prefer Frozen. The two are quite similar with Tangled having come first but of the three issues that piss me off, Frozen was the most subversive and particularly regarding the issue of 'true love'. In the last five years Disney has given us a black princess, less clichéd role models and in Frozen's case the idea that the love between a man and a woman isn't the be all and end all. Considering that these films do brainwash our children from an early age, this movement towards a less archetypal world is surely a good thing? Whether Disney is the chicken or the egg, its progress might be slow but it is happening and so long as they keep making great and classic films then I really can't complain. Well- I can complain obviously as the previous 2000 words have proven but you get my point.... Now erm... well thanks for reading and err... fuck off!


10 February 2014

Beans: The Ultimate Disaster Movie

Apparently Americans are relatively unaware of what a pantomime is so let's explain... Every Christmas, theatrical productions of classic fairytales are opened to the public in which shit actors take their careers to die. Primarily, these things are aimed at kids but also often include smutty jokes for the adults that have been dragged along too. Because there's nothing a kid loves more than not understanding a reference to anal sex. The shows are kind of like a cross between one of the Grimm's Fairytales, a Carry On film and a brain haemorrhage. I actually went to one of these at the end of last year starring none other than the famous singer Sonia!!! Well actually- I say famous.. I mean I'd never heard of her but she was definitely in it because I remember her being seriously fucking awful. Not that it is a bad thing by the way. No- well, yeah it's definitely a bad thing but pantomimes are always shit and so if you're going to see one, you want to make sure it's proper dire. The worse the show is, the more embarrassing it is for the people on stage, the funnier it is for me. I'm going back again next year but to make the whole process even more amusing I plan to arrive with plenty of munchies and completely stoned off my tits.

Anyway so I recently watched Jack the Giant Slayer which tells the story of a young boy who swaps his horse for some magic beans. Jack meets a girl, the beans get wet, a giant stalk shoots up and suddenly he's able to travel into a sky-world of giants. So basically just your stereotypical sexual awakening I guess. Sadly though, the girl gets carried up into this world and so requires rescuing... because as any old sexist will tell you, women are useless and rely on men to help them out. Because she also happens to be a Princess, quite a few men go to her rescue including Jack, some soldiers and an untrustworthy Stanley Tucci who intends to bring the giants back down with him to take over our kingdom. That's pretty much all there is to it really as this has already become the odd film out of director Bryan Singer’s filmography. From the director of The Usual Suspects, X-Men and Superman Returns comes a reasonably silly, child-friendly film that's about as unmemorable and hollow as the average persons head. I'm generally not a fan of people so if Tucci wants giants to come down and smash us all to bits then I'm honestly not too fucked about it.

When I hear a film is directed by Singer and written by McQuarrie I tend to expect something special that might redefine a genre as I race to the cinema to spunk away my cash. The first X-Men wasn't perfect but I still loved it and there's no denying that it was an integral element regarding the recent explosion of Superhero blockbusters. On the outside, X-Men was a film about people with special powers but underneath was obviously about prejudice of any kind with its sequel even including a 'coming out' scene. It's quite surprising then to see that Jack the Giant Slayer really is about fuck all more than the title suggests. Do you want to see some ugly tall people get killed in variously comical ways? Then this is probably the film for you!

"Anyway, tonight's speeches are fucking cancelled. Nurse your fucking wounds."
I think Jack the Giant Slayer is roughly just under two hours long and if I'm being honest I was proper titty-bored by the first half hour. I went in expecting a Bryan Singer film but what I got was some bog standard American bullshit with stilted dialogue, a contrived set up and a fairly standard look to the world. However before the disappointment infected too much of my body, Ian McShane turned up as the king and he was dressed like an absolute knob-end. It was at that point that everything suddenly clicked for me. By coincidence, I'm actually re-watching Deadwood right now where his gritty, nuanced and just generally fucking brilliant portrayal of Al Swearengen may be one of the greatest performances I've ever seen. So to see him go from that to wearing tight golden armour, a cloak that looks like a hernia and generally just being as camp as a row of tents was kind of shocking. Only now did I realise that this film is basically just a bigger budget and all star version of one of those shitty old pantomimes that I explained about earlier!    

So Ian McShane mincing about whilst dressed as a fucking plum was my original clue and of course the story is an obvious choice for a pantomime but there are a few other signs as well. Firstly the lead character played by Nicholas Hoult is about as much fun as trying to piss a stray pube down the toilet... It's not that he wasn't good, it's just that it's such a copy and paste farmboy-esque character that in terms of memorability, he lingers as briefly as a fart in the wind. I mean I do like Hoult in other things and he did his best here considering what little there was to work with but as a main character, he's just Luke Skywalker without the incest. However.. having a boring main character is kind of the done thing with pantos as usually it's the villain who gets all the 'funny' lines. This is certainly true of this film too with Stanley Tucci continuing his campaign of being one of the funniest actors who isn't actually a comedian. At the show I went to last Christmas, an example of the villains comedic lines which he shouted at the audience was, “I'll come down there and paint all your M&M's the same colour”. Like I said, pantomimes are very shit. Plus if he shouts that again next year when I've got the full blown munchies then there's a good chance that I'll pull a whitey and glass the fucker. To the credit of Jack the Giant Slayer... it might not be the best film of all time but there were moments were Stanley Tucci was certainly much funnier than that.

Another thing that got me to catch on to the panto connection was the use of one of the most clichéd lines in cinema history. One of my huge movie pet peeves is when somebody’s looking into the distance before something bad happens and they say “There's a storm coming”. I know that the storm is metaphorical of some upcoming 'trouble' but presumably when they say it they're unaware of their place within the films narrative structure and so are literally just referring to the storm. In which case other than a bedraggled old sea-dog, who the fuck says “There's a storm coming”? If I see a grey cloud then at best I'll just say “This weather's looking a bit shit” and that's if I even bother to comment at all. If somebody paid me to write films.. which they fucking should.. I'd still have a scene where our hero's existentially contemplate their uncertain future whilst staring at the horizon.. that's all fine.. but this time I'd have one turn to the other and both meaningfully and stoically ask “Is it just me or is it going to piss down?”... anything for originality! Anyway- rant aside, that's not actually the line in the movie but you get my point. The line in the film is when Hoult tries to act heroically, thinks its working and then realises there's an army behind him. To which he says “There's something behind me isn't there” and with that, the record was broken for the most times a shit joke has even been said on camera.

The first time he said it I felt a large part of my soul die of cringe-tumours... however when the joke was used again at the end of the film, I got it. I mentioned before that at the panto I attended, the villain shouted out to the crowd because at these shows audience participation is very much a part of it. They have stock phrases that come up time and time again to partly make it more fun and presumably to drag the crappy show out a few extra minutes. One example of a panto phrase is when the character on the stage is about to be knifed in the back of the head by the villain... or something slightly more child-friendly... to which the audience shouts out, “He's behind you”. I'm therefore giving Jack the Giant Slayer a huge benefit of the doubt and hoping to fuck that their use of that ball-achingly awful line was a reference to these shitty stage shows. Using it once would perhaps be a tenuous connection but to use it twice must surely suggest a link because, if not, that's too depressing to actually contemplate. Plus this is the second paragraph I've now dedicated to that phrase and clearly I have an angle on this blog so for the sake of my point let's say we all agree it's definitely a reference to the real pantomimes and just move the fuck on!

"Is that tagline being rude?"
So both the real shows and this film are inspired by fairytales, feature boring main characters, a funnier villain, generally camp acting, catchphrases and... innuendos! To be fair the movie from what I can remember didn't feature too many unsubtly hidden, rude jokes... but the tagline does kind of allude to swearing. “You think you know the story. You don’t know Jack.”...Hurrhurr it's funny coz it made me fink da word 'shit'... although to be fair I did think it was pretty funny and it did make me think of the word shit. The only issue with it as a teaser is that if you think you know this story then to be honest you probably do. It's formulaic to the point of agony but again that's also true of pantos. If the film has one problem... which it doesn't- it has fucking loads... but if it did have only one problem it would be that it is neither great nor shit. Jack the Giant Slayer is a thoroughly average movie which will kill a couple of hours in the most harmless way possible. It's not as fun as sleeping with another real human but nor is it as boring as being stuck in a lift whilst needing a piss. If you've got nothing better to do then I'd happily say it's worth checking out but there are so many more films that are so much better. Is this the best film in the world? All together now, “OH NO IT ISN'T”... No it really fucking isn't but it's still good so whatever, see it, don't see, I don't care. Bye!


3 February 2014

Luckily We're In First Class

There's a television program called The Jeremy Kyle Show that I'm kind of obsessed with because it's so fucking awful. Basically it's one of those chat shows that has evolved from the Victorian Freak Show in which a never ending supply of gozzy eyed fucktards turn up to scream and drool all over each other. I hate everything about it but I can't help but tune in because it's like looking through a gateway and into another dimension. Imagine the bomb went off during the Cold War and we're now living in some radioactive dystopia where buck-toothed mutants queue up to be judged by Kyle, their Lizard king and that's kind of what it's like. I think the point of the show is to laugh at the lives of these deficient individuals which I obviously do... Although not because I think I'm better than them but because sometimes something is just so awful that it has to be a joke. In the words of The Comedian “Mother forgive me”. I watch it almost every day but that doesn't mean I like anything about it at all. It is the purest definition of car crash TV… in that if everybody involved were to be killed by a car the world would be a far better place.

Roadside deaths aside though, the reason that I can find enjoyment of this show is remarkably similar to the reason that I enjoyed The Wolf Of Wall Street. This is the latest film to star DiCaprio and the fifth in which he's worked with his Sugar Daddy, Director Martin Scorsese. Based on the life of an ex-stock broker named Jordan Belfort, the film depicts his transformation from an enthusiastic whipper-snapper into a massive rich twat. Set during the 80's and 90's, the movie depicts the highs and lows of too much money with particular emphasis on how the excesses of the time seemed to turn people into demented fucking sociopaths. Fuelled by his need for more of everything, DiCaprio's Belfort is corrupted by his obsessive search for power, drugs and anything else that might distract him from realising what a solid gold fucknugget he is. Despite generally positive reviews though, the film has apparently caused some degree of controversy with many sources claiming that it glamorises its main character and his decadent, dick of a lifestyle. With Belfort's social life being like a scene from Caligula and his business meetings being like a frat party I can see where the criticism might be coming from. I can see where it's coming from but in the same way that Jeremy Kyle's guests are meant to be human, as a theory it is just plain wrong... And here's why!

Either he thinks he's Jesus or it's a 'T' for 'twat'.
Okay, so for a start who doesn't want to be rich? I know people say that money can't buy happiness but it can certainly buy shit that would make me happy. Did you know that there's a replica R2-D2 movie projector out there in the world? Fuck financial stability, if I bought that I don't think I could ever be miserable again! Belfort is somebody who clearly agrees and so it's easy to see this film as a kind of wish fulfilment thing as he spunks all his money on big houses, boats and abusing dwarves. But then to see this as a glorification of his life you kind of also have to ignore the drug addictions and his subsequent downfall surely? A lot of us would like to shag a fashion model on a bed of money but you'd have to have some strange fetishes to then want to punch her in the stomach as she takes away your children. Sure Belfort looks like he's having a good time when snorting coke off a whores tits but Ralf Fiennes also looked like he was having fun in Schindler's List when shooting random Jews in the fucking head. Just because I see a cunt enjoying himself it doesn't mean I want to leap in and have a go myself.

This is where The Jeremy Kyle Show comes back into things again as like I said, I watch that show and enjoy it despite having absolute contempt for all involved. In both cases I don't have to relate to or empathise with the people on screen to find enjoyment. In fact the enjoyment comes from seeing these horrendous people obliviously making absolute dicks of themselves. For example, in The Wolf of Wall Street there's a really funny sequence in which Belfort is off his face on drugs and so has to crawl his way to his car. It involves him rolling down some concrete steps, getting his foot stuck in his cars door handle and then fighting with his friend who is equally as spaced out. It's genuinely hilarious but the joke isn't ‘look at how great he is, I wish I was him’. The joke is look at what an absolute tit this guy is- I hope that fucking hurt!

I suppose though that there is some defence for the people who see it as promoting Belfort's arse gargle of a life. Aside from what is simply on screen, I think it's clear from interviews that Scorsese and all involved were making a film aimed at criticising the money burning, very real bell-ends of Wall Street. However just because a film was made with good intentions doesn't mean it can't be interpreted differently by different people. I mean I'm pretty sure that The Terminator is meant to be about a crazy robot who kills people but when I watch it all I see is anti-abortion propaganda... Everybody is trying to kill an unborn child because despite still being a foetus, it has the potential to change the world. Even though the mother might not be ready for it due to being single, unemployed, young and have awful hair. Anyway, so yeah, my point is that maybe people do watch Wolf Of Wall Street and see it as being an advert for life as a mega-rich, uber-twat but for all the reasons mentioned above that's clearly not what it actually is. It's the difference between saying, “The film is promoting their lifestyle” and “My personal reading of the film is that it is promoting their lifestyle”. Their reading is just as valid as anybody else's on a personal level but that doesn't make it a fault of the film if they see it and decide it's made everything look quite appealing. It just means that when they see Belfort causing all his shit they think it looks fun and then feel ashamed that that's how they felt. If you look at a Rorschach test and see an image of your mums gaping arse it's not that you're wrong but just that maybe it's not the psychiatrist you should get mad at.

Oh good, another party scene. I hope a bomb goes off in this one.
Personally I thought that this was a great film which mocked its main characters and highlighted the horror of a society that forces decent but poorer people to bend over and get fucked up the arse. If either of us were in this film, we wouldn't be the ones burning money and buying yachts, we'd be the depressed looking woman who gets her head shaved for the passing laughs. We wouldn't be the fat man who can afford to eat his employee's pet goldfish... we'd be the fucking goldfish. If I have any criticism it would most probably be in regards to the films length which, like the drooping trunk of an old man’s foreskin, it’s just a bit too much. All of the party scenes are enjoyable but you could easily take a couple out without losing anything vital and then stick the trimmings on the DVD. I understand that they're funny and show the kind of parties that these people throw but I don't need to see every little thing to understand the situation. Apparently Scorsese struggled to edit this down from four hours too which is strange considering that structurally The Wolf of Wall Street is pretty much identical to Goodfellas. Thank fuck he managed at least that though because my bladder was already pretty close to turning me into an explosive, fleshy biological bomb of piss.

Finally though, it's really worth noting just how brilliant DiCaprio's performance is as he flops about the screen with the force and pain of a man who’s really working hard for that Oscar. Watch also how he riles up his workers with motivational speeches as though channelling both an annoying 'Praise the Lord Preacher' and Hitler during the Nuremberg rallies. If you really think this is advocating his behaviour, I think you need a long hard look in the mirror to fully contemplate your own stupidity before we never speak to each other again! Belfort constantly comes back to proving how great a stockbroker is by asking his minions to sell him his own pen. Shame he never tried that with Jo Pesci in Scorsese's previous film Casino because he'd have ended up with it being stabbed through his selfish fucking neck.