Movies  •  Critics  •  About
Existimatum  >  Movies  >  The Wolf of Wall Street  >  Reviews  >  Metro

Matt Prigge’s “Monotonous on Purpose” Seems Murky on Purpose

In response to Matt Prigge’s 459‑word review of The Wolf of Wall Street on Metro 

http://www.metro.us/newyork/entertainment/movies-entertainment/2013/12/19/review-the-wolf-of-wall-street-is-monotonous-on-purpose/

By ,

Matt Prigge’s “Review: ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ is monotonous on purpose” sets up a rather unusual premise—just take a look at the review’s title—then sets out to try and prove his point. While the premise is intriguing, the article loses it’s way pretty quickly. It’s not even clear, ultimately, whether he thinks the film’s approach works or not (the grade he gives the film suggests that he thinks it does, if not the review itself). But the prose becomes so murky by the end of the review, it’s too hard to care.

As the critic correctly points out, with a popular film like “Goodfellas,” it’s fun to pretend to be a gangster doing some pretty appalling things for a couple of hours, even if the audience would not choose to do them in real life. But the point of “Wolf,” per this critic, is that the audience will want be like these people but will find them to be so despicable (more despicable than gangsters who torture and kill people?) that they’ll quickly change their mind; meanwhile, to provide further proof of how awful they are, the movie is purposely monotonous, and, by the way this a comedy, so… are you laughing yet? Or just lost?

Perhaps the appropriate title for this review is “Murky and Confusing on Purpose.” It’s a shame because Prigge had an interesting idea to begin with; but by the end, it’s gotten lost, never to be found.     

Quality of Writing Quality of Argument Spoiler Avoidance Presentation