NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

carbuff I saw this a long time ago and remembered liking it OK, but I'm definitely liking it better now than when I originally saw it. This is probably because it actually has a plot, unlike the majority of modern American movies which are simply built around special effects and cartoonish action. It is frequently downright hilarious and brings back memories of the 1980s, which seems like a painfully innocent time compared to today. It is also quite politically incorrect at points, something that' harder to get away with nowadays, even if it rings totally true. It would be a straight up 10-star flick if it weren't for the awful casting. Every major star (although they weren't major stars when this was filmed), while not completely terrible, just feels wrong for their roles; however, the strength of the script rescues the film, and, like fine wine, it only gets better with age. So ignore the mediocre acting performances, and just enjoy a really fun (and for many of us, nostalgic) motion picture experience.

hellseher-759-985447 Yes, it doesn't do the book justice. Yes, people in the Bronx don't wear, nor have ever worn, such clothes. Yes, Peter Fallow is English in the book. Yes, you could say Melanie Griffith overacts. But you could also say that she a) plays herself like she behaved on the job and b) De Palma wanted her to do it that way. The point is that Da Palma did a brillant job. You simply must not compare this film to the book, but watch it in his own right, as a comedy from 1990. If you manage that you will find that it's great film. It is entertaining, it looks great (for the time, and it's a pity that there is still no really good Blu-Ray remaster), it is acted very well right across the board, it holds your attention, and it has even aged well. Bashing De Palma for it was simply never fair - it was en voue back then for many reasons. Read "The Devil's Candy" by Julie Salamon if you are a film freak and/or really interested what went on then. If not, and if you haven't read Wolfe's fantastic book, don't listen to the naysayers, the Tom Wolfe fanboys and over-intellectualizing critics. Just sit back enjoy a wonderful film from that time and of that genre. And if you have read the book (which is fun after watching the film, as it elaborates on so many points, if you will), seriously ask youself: How would you have done the film?

calvinnme It's been a long time since I read the book or saw the movie, but the casting in this film was all wrong. I saw the trailer on TV, saw the disaster the film might be, but I went to see it anyways and I was very disappointed. Tom Hanks, even before Philadelphia or Forrest Gump or Sleepless in Seattle, played the likable every-man. Hanks' character, Sherman McCoy, is a wall street tycoon, aged 38, with a wife two years older, a daughter he adores, and a young mistress that he insists he deserves all because he is a "master of the universe". In the book, Judy McCoy, Sherman's wife, is described as handsome but matronly at aged 40. Sherman remembers his mother telling him a wife two years older would not make a difference when he was 24 and she was 26, but 20 years later it would, and actually it took only ten years.But then one night when he is with his mistress, Sherman takes a wrong turn off the freeway into the South Bronx and ends up hitting a black youth with his car because he perceives his life is in danger, and decides to not report the accident to police, to "hit and run". However, he is tracked down and arrested and soon realizes he is not the master of anything compared to the grifters, community leaders, ambulance chasers, and prosecutors who finally have a completely unlikable rich white perp and a poor black victim.The novel was wonderful and nuanced. The movie is obvious and almost farcical. Hanks is too likable to play any of the characters in this film, I had Bruce Willis pictured as Sherman McCoy more than the drunken yellow journalist, and Kim Cattrell, who plays Sherman's wife, doesn't look like the matronly 40 year old and barely tolerated wife of anybody in 1990. Only Morgan Freeman as the judge rings remotely true. I'd pass on this one if I were you, but for sure read the book. After the 2008 crash and the banksters walking away without a scratch, Sherman McCoy seems more real than ever.

rzajac In one sense, TBotV is "The Wolf of Wall Street", done right the first time.There's a manic unhingedness about Wolff's writing, and the scenario/writing in the movie courageously tries to capture that. It's a broad and multi-dimensioned exposition on the excesses of success. Huzzah for that!But translating it to the screen is also a juggling act--and other balls get dropped in this flick.By way of one example, I cringed during each and every one of the the courtroom scenes. While I applaud the film's effort to show the multifarious tentacles of the monster of excess, the writer(s) overstepped--or perhaps just misapplied the tone--when they attempt to show what it looks like when one of those tentacles slithers into a courtroom.Y'know, the more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that part of what niggles at me about TBotV is its nonstop cavalcade of exposition. These expositional freight trains, in general, tend to be tiring; film needs to "breathe" a little. It reminds me of what Wolff says about Chomsky in "Manufacturing Consent"; academics seize upon politics as an opportunity to act "like clergy". Well, TBotV sometimes comes off like a liturgical treatment of its subject matter. Perhaps Wolff didn't like Chomsky treading on his turf!Anyway, the film sometimes seems on the verge of drowning under the weight and viscosity of its own expressionism. But I still feel it's worth watching for how skillfully the actors acquit themselves to the task of hammering out that expressionism, as well as marveling at the dedication of the director to unstintingly wielding that hammer, and the courage of the producers for budgeting this off-kilter merry-go-'round.