:00:00. > :00:00.Australian Open. That is all in Sportsday at 6. 30pm. Now it's time
:00:00. > :00:24.for The Film Review. Welcome to the Film Review. To take
:00:25. > :00:28.us through this week's cinema releases is Mark Kerr mode. We have
:00:29. > :00:32.already had an argument before the first film and we haven't started
:00:33. > :00:35.yet. What have we got? The big release, obviously, The Wolf of Wall
:00:36. > :00:40.Street, the new film by Martin Scorscese, starring Leonardo
:00:41. > :00:47.DiCaprio. And we also have the delves due. Remember Rosemary's
:00:48. > :00:52.Baby. This is like Rosemary's Baby's Baby. And Timer have me, can an
:00:53. > :00:57.inventor and technician be paint like a 1th century Dutch artist Dobb
:00:58. > :01:02.Timer have mere. -- 17th century. Now, The Wolf of
:01:03. > :01:04.Wall Street I happened to mention I loved it and laughed all the way
:01:05. > :01:09.through. You happened to suggest you perhaps didn't. The We will have a
:01:10. > :01:15.full and frank set-to. A new film, directed by Martin Scorscese, three
:01:16. > :01:18.hours' long, Leonardo DiCaprio stars as does Jordan Belfort. A
:01:19. > :01:24.stockbroker. It tells of his rise and fall. He played past and loose
:01:25. > :01:30.with the stock market. Lived a life of wanton debauchery. It is a three
:01:31. > :01:35.three-hour orgy of drugs, and sex. It was billed at the Golden Globe as
:01:36. > :01:39.a comedy, the Kyoto gree. I would say it is a jet black comedy. Here
:01:40. > :01:46.is one of the more comic moments where the rising financier is giving
:01:47. > :01:56.up rating by his father. Here is a climb.
:01:57. > :02:07.$30,000 in one month, Geordie, huh? Business expenses. Look what you got
:02:08. > :02:12.here. Look at this, ?$26,000 for one dinner. This can be explained we had
:02:13. > :02:16.the Pfizer clients. The Porterhouse. We had to buy champagne. Tell them
:02:17. > :02:23.about the sides you ordered. I ordered sides. $26,000 worth of
:02:24. > :02:27.sides. What are these sides, to cure cancer? They did, that's problem
:02:28. > :02:31.they were a plus-one, they were expensive Shut up, stop. OK, one of
:02:32. > :02:36.the funnier moments in the film. All the good stuff, DiCaprio is
:02:37. > :02:46.terrific, his performance is over the top and controlled. Jonah Hill
:02:47. > :02:50.building on performances like Money Fall. Here is my problem. It apes
:02:51. > :02:53.the structure of Goodfellows n that case there is a way into the central
:02:54. > :02:57.character, he does terrible things and you are interested by him. My
:02:58. > :03:00.problem with The Wolf of Wall Street which is based on memoirs, is I
:03:01. > :03:04.hated him from the outset. Some people have complained that what the
:03:05. > :03:09.film does, it somehow glamourises or revels in his lifestyle. Endless
:03:10. > :03:13.orgies and drug taking and endless debauched behaviour. They say it
:03:14. > :03:17.glamourises T I have to say having seen it twice I didn't feel it was
:03:18. > :03:20.glamourised because I loathe the lifestyle entirely. The problem for
:03:21. > :03:24.me is this: If you loathe a character, you cannot find a way in.
:03:25. > :03:29.In the case of Good fellas there is a way of empathising with and liking
:03:30. > :03:34.the company of some of these people. With me, I founder watching this was
:03:35. > :03:38.like watching and undunging, it is way too long, there is no way it
:03:39. > :03:43.should be three hours' long, it depicts a world in which the world
:03:44. > :03:46.is macho and chauvinistic but the film treats its female characters
:03:47. > :03:50.badly, they are either wives or girlfriends or sex workers. It is
:03:51. > :03:54.one of those things which you think there is a Titan movie in there, a
:03:55. > :03:58.movie which is a stronger critique of the world it is depicting. I just
:03:59. > :04:03.thought, having seen it twice, at no point was I emotionally engaged.
:04:04. > :04:08.There were things it that were funny and a that I admire but I found it
:04:09. > :04:14.frosty, and a chilly experience. If I can have a right of reply. I
:04:15. > :04:18.thought it was like the Great Gats by with laughs. Of course it was
:04:19. > :04:22.over the top but it was funny. You don't have to like - you have to see
:04:23. > :04:27.a way into it, but his appeal was the public were mugs and he
:04:28. > :04:33.exploited that. Now you could say that's morally reprehensible but if
:04:34. > :04:37.you had a downer on every morally reprehensible hero you wouldn't like
:04:38. > :04:40.Macbeth? That's not my problem. My problem is if there is no way into
:04:41. > :04:45.the character, spending that time in his company becomes tiresome. Some
:04:46. > :04:48.people have said it glamourises and galorifies his lifestyle. I don't
:04:49. > :04:52.think that's the case but I think it gives you a blank and loathsome and
:04:53. > :04:56.inpenetrable portrait of a world of people behaving in an I a Pauling,
:04:57. > :05:00.amoral way... You don't think that bears any resemblance to the way in
:05:01. > :05:06.which Wall Street functioned at the time? I this I it does but when you
:05:07. > :05:10.look at King of Comedy and Goodfellows these people were
:05:11. > :05:15.potentially psychotic but you had a way into their characters. In the
:05:16. > :05:22.end... Did you not feel At no point, three hours was stretching it. You.
:05:23. > :05:26.It. I laughed a lot. There were other films I saw recently that less
:05:27. > :05:33.than three hours were Treving it a lot. The delves due, you say,
:05:34. > :05:38.Rosemary's Baby's Baby A newly married couple they go on holiday
:05:39. > :05:43.for their honeymoon and they find themselves unwittingly carrying the
:05:44. > :05:46.dove devil's child. You think I have seen this before, but it is down
:05:47. > :05:51.withed mo earn footage. We see it through video diaries or
:05:52. > :05:57.surveillance Camaras. The problem with the film is that Eli wroth, he
:05:58. > :06:01.hasn't had an original thought since his first film. He says just because
:06:02. > :06:04.Rosemary's Baby is a Holy Grail doesn't mean you should discount
:06:05. > :06:08.this. But if you have seen it, and also you sit there and go - that's
:06:09. > :06:18.the plot from Rosemary's Baby, that's the demon child thing from
:06:19. > :06:22.the Omen and Its Alive and that's from exorcist. There is a part of
:06:23. > :06:26.you thinking if you have never seen any horror films before you might be
:06:27. > :06:30.surprised. On a technical level it is done perfectly efficiently. It is
:06:31. > :06:34.not terrible by any means. It is knotted just the way so many
:06:35. > :06:39.horrible films are done now, quiet, quiet, bang. But it is so stunningly
:06:40. > :06:41.unoriginal that you think there is a amendment that somebody ought to go
:06:42. > :06:47.- shall we just do something that hasn't been done before? Now, Tim's
:06:48. > :06:52.Vermeer that hasn't been done before. People for a long time
:06:53. > :06:57.speculated that there are lots of things extraordinary about the
:06:58. > :07:02.pictures but one is, did he use photographic technique? It has been
:07:03. > :07:07.around for a while. Tim Jenson who is anp inventor and technician, but
:07:08. > :07:12.not a painter figures the light box, the pin Camara, he must have used a
:07:13. > :07:18.protophotographic thing. In order to prove this he sets out to recreate
:07:19. > :07:24.the room, the setting of the music lesson and he, an avowed
:07:25. > :07:29.non-painter, using the technique he thinks Vermeer must have used, can
:07:30. > :07:36.paint anything like Vermeer. Here is a clip. Seeing the Vermeeres in
:07:37. > :07:40.person was a revelation. It reinforced to me that I was on the
:07:41. > :07:47.right track. That what I was seeing was an accurate representation of
:07:48. > :07:55.the colour in that room. I just had a hunch that there must be a way to
:07:56. > :07:59.actually get the colours accurate. With mechanical means. Some way you
:08:00. > :08:03.could do that in the 17th century. The genius of the film is this. He
:08:04. > :08:06.sets out to see if he can reproduce what he believes the techniques are.
:08:07. > :08:10.It is kind of like a detective work. He is looking at the painting going,
:08:11. > :08:15.how could he have got this level of clarity and detail and this level of
:08:16. > :08:20.photographic light recognition? And, working with, know, what he thinks
:08:21. > :08:27.is what Vermeer must have used he sets out to replicate the work. It
:08:28. > :08:32.is a Penn Teller project so you think, is it a hoax, is it an
:08:33. > :08:34.illusion but it is fascinating and interesting. It is a film that
:08:35. > :08:38.ultimately concludes that there is not a divide between art and
:08:39. > :08:41.science, that there is nothing non-artistic about being technical.
:08:42. > :08:44.There is no lack of inspiration in finding a brilliant way of using
:08:45. > :08:50.smoke and mirrors, so on the one hand it is anner ultimate for what
:08:51. > :08:52.Penn Teller do anyway. But it is an engrossing mystery storey. You
:08:53. > :08:55.are looking at somebody investigating the evidence, almost
:08:56. > :08:58.like Sherlock Holmes, how could they have done that? I thought it was
:08:59. > :09:02.absolutely fascinating. And very moving and I think, in the end,
:09:03. > :09:07.proves there is a unity of art and skies, rather well. We are not going
:09:08. > :09:13.to have a row about what your best film of the week is, 12 Years a
:09:14. > :09:16.Slave is harrowing but extraordinary Absolutely extraordinary, I think
:09:17. > :09:23.Steve McQueen has done a brilliant job of bringing this to the screen.
:09:24. > :09:28.It has done fantastic in Oscar nominations. I think he will win
:09:29. > :09:31.Best picture. The point is, the film is tough but it is just as tough as
:09:32. > :09:35.it needs to be. There are moments when you look away, but what he
:09:36. > :09:40.understands is how to tell this story, not in anyway how to demean
:09:41. > :09:43.it or diminish it. It has to be told in a tough way. He does it
:09:44. > :09:48.brilliantly. You come out of it thinking - it is truthful, realistic
:09:49. > :09:51.and ultimately ennobling. I genuinely think in the history of
:09:52. > :09:54.cinema, it will be seen as an important movie. Also, there are
:09:55. > :09:59.small bits, for instance, when he is named. He is told his name isn't
:10:00. > :10:03.what it is used to be and that he is Plait. That dehumanisation quite
:10:04. > :10:07.extraordinarily moving, although it may see a small thing. Once you see
:10:08. > :10:10.this in the film and understand what it means to a human being to be
:10:11. > :10:16.controlled in that way, not to have your own name. It explains Malcolm X
:10:17. > :10:25.and Muhhammad Ali. Yes and the use of music is just wonderful. Your
:10:26. > :10:32.DVD. One of the world's less subtle director, Roland Emmerich But with
:10:33. > :10:39.him you know what you are going to get. There was two films one was
:10:40. > :10:42.boring but White House Down has more explosions. It is looking at the
:10:43. > :10:46.lawn saying - is that the President with ak rote launcher. The answer
:10:47. > :10:50.is, yes, why? Because it is a Roland Emmerich film and he can do it.
:10:51. > :10:53.Excellent. Thank you very much. A reminder before we go you will find
:10:54. > :10:59.more film news and reviews from Mark on his BBC blog at BBC do you/Mark
:11:00. > :11:02.Kerr mode. That's it for this week. I'm right about The Wolf of Wall
:11:03. > :11:12.Street. He is wrong. Thank you for watching. Goodbye.
:11:13. > :11:19.Hello. Good evening. For many, Sunday is going to be the best day
:11:20. > :11:24.of the week. We have more rain to come in on Saturday and we have seen
:11:25. > :11:29.a lot of showers today particularly. From overnight into this morning
:11:30. > :11:31.across the south-east which is why we have had scenes of flooding.
:11:32. > :11:32.Lines