The Wolf of Wall Street

There is a reason this is called Wolf of Wall Street and not Lion of Wall Street. This is not supposed to be a story about some good guy or misunderstood guy doing things that are a little off. And therefor it was important to make this a comedy. When I watched it, I didn't think it would qualify as comedy. Thought of it more of a drama with some comedic moments thrown in.

The way it starts should indicate if this is something you want to watch. Never forget, as someone else also stated, this is supposed to be entertainment and does not take itself seriously. If you are not on that level with the movie, you will call it names. And that is OK, because obviously the movie is out there and it will not be everyones taste. That's why you have to decide early on, if you actually want to watch it or not.

If you don't feel like it, don't watch it. Save yourself some time and watch something else that interests you instead. If it hits a nerve with you though, you will revel in it. Especially in the performance Leonardo Di Caprio is giving. There is a scene involving him driving "carefully", that has to be seen to be believed ...

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

**** (out of 4)

Two word review: A Masterpice.

Martin Scorsese's latest film is yet another brilliant one with Leonard DiCaprio turning in the greatest performance of his career as stockbroker Jordan Belfort who takes some rather bland people and turn them into one of the biggest scams that the FBI ever saw. THE WOLF OF WALL STREET is going to make many people unhappy and there are many more who are probably going to be offended by it but the perfection that is Scorsese was right when he decided to turn this into a comedy instead of a drama. Yeah, it's GOODFELLAS on speed and ramped up sex but it's just so brilliantly and wickedly funny that you can't help but laugh at all the craziness going on. Yes, there are some moral police out there who are going to object to a movie being made about a man who ripped off poor people but I'm sorry, I like the fact that this film doesn't really care about those people and instead just gives us an in-your-face look at these wild people, their wild drugs and their wild sex lives. This film is certainly over-the-top in regards to the excess but so were the characters so I thought they just went hand and hand with each other. Scorsese was the perfect person for this project because of his ramped up speed but here is goes all out and really delivers an incredibly wicked little ride that will have you smiling and laughing at some very questionable things.

I've been a fan of DiCaprio long before he became famous and this here is without question the greatest performance he's given so far. I was curious to see how he would do playing someone crazy and wild like this but he does so perfectly and I'd say it was a flawless performance. No matter what was going on in this crazy life you believe that you're watching a real character and as his character says throughout the film, sell him something. Well, DiCaprio sells this performance and role like no one else could. The supporting players are just as wonderful with Jonah Hill, Margot Robbie, Rob Reiner, Jon Favreau, Matthew McConaughey and Jean Dujardin all delivering terrific performances. The cinematography, the music selections and everything else are just flawless here. THE WOLF OF WALL STREET could have been a complete disaster in so many ways but the strong screenplay and Scorsese's wicked direction makes it an incredibly entertaining film that works so well. It's hard to fully put into words what Scorsese and DiCaprio have pulled off but it's certainly one of the best and most memorable comedies in ages.

Based on the true story of Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio), from his rise to a wealthy stockbroker living the high life to his fall involving crime, corruption and the federal government.

As of now (February 2014), this film sits at an impressive #57 on IMDb's list of greatest films of all time. Using that as a jumping off point for this review, we will have to scale it back a bit. Whether the film should be on the list is debatable, but certainly not within the top 100 -- it is neither that good nor among director Martin Scorsese's best work.

Along the same lines, the Oscar nomination for Best Picture is a bit much. While there is no denying it was probably among the ten best films of 2013, with some incredible acting and more than adequate cinematography and editing, the very fact it has no chance of winning makes one question why even nominate the film at all. (Of course, without nine nominees, we would be back to having the reasonable number of five...)

Scorsese received a best director nomination, and this strikes me as more understandable. He managed to assemble an impressive cast and tell a story that is both compelling and entertaining, without trying to put some moral tag on it. Whether or not the viewer thinks this is a glorification or denouncement of the acts depicted is up to them, as the film itself is blank (in the best way).

While on the subject, could the drug use and sexuality have been toned down? Absolutely. And there is a good argument that they should have been (especially the non-stop sex, which comes across as gratuitous and only adds more minutes to this lengthy financial epic). Another argument says the events are extremely unlikely and exaggerated at times. And this is probably also true; but the film is accurate to the memoir, not reality, and this is Belfort telling his story with all the embellishments that come with it. If you want just the facts, read the court transcripts.

Leonardo DiCaprio is nominated for best actor, and this is a choice that is understandable and yet hard to rally behind. He truly becomes Belfort, and probably makes the man out to be even more wild than he was. That deserves a nomination. But this is not DiCaprio's best role (he has also done a fine job portraying Howard Hughes and J. Edgar Hoover) and not one he deserves the win for.

Jonah Hill, on the other hand, was amazing and deserves to win his supporting actor category. Being up again Jared Leto, he probably has no chance, but Hill has come a long way in a few short years from a lovable doofus in "Superbad" to a formidable actor in his own right. At first, "Moneyball" seemed to be an anomaly in Hil's career, but he showed the world he could do even better when he became Donny Azoff in this picture. Incredible.

Whether Terence Winter deserves Best Adapted Screenplay for this film is unclear without having read the book. Such a nomination seems fair, though the win is hard to say without more familiarity. I am surprised no nominations came for cinematography or editing, which are strong in their subtlety. But oh well.

Of the film's five nominations, it may walk away with one win (Winter) or two at most (DiCaprio). More likely it will walk away empty-handed. The film is not flawless (we could go on about how awkward the soundtrack was) and may or may not go on to be memorable for much more than its nudity and pervasive cursing.

The movie Leonardo DiCaprio should have gotten an Oscar for. His portrayal of the character is perfect. The movie is well-written, leaving no details out of the original story. Martin Scorsese never fails to impress. One of the only example where the movie is better than the book. The movie never gets boring, I could watch this anytime.

Brilliantly acted, superbly written and as one would expect from a picture by Martin Scorsese, it is a masterclass of directorial craft.

Showy when it needs to be, but also quiet and contemplative. "The Wolf of Wall Street" is the equivalent of something like "Good Fellas" or even more so "Casino" but set in the world of finance. The suits might be more expensive but the people who wear them are just as sick and violent as their street-mob counterparts. Sardonic in humor and unflinching in showing the depravity of its characters, it marks somewhat of a different approach to the world of stock-trading than Oliver Stone's "Wall Street".

Where Stone seems more in line with Bertold Brecht who considered theater (or in this case film) a moral institution, does Scorsese take the position of the omnipresent observer of the dark side of the American and in many cases the human dream.

Leonard DiCaprio gives another stellar performance of great intensity and even greater tragedy while this tale of corruption, greed and self-righteousness unfolds.

It's a vast panorama that shows how during the last twenty-five to thirty years gullibility as well as our innate greed make all of us accomplices in this never-ending pyramid scheme far away from any reality.

One could almost hear Scorsese's clerical background come to the fore again, according to which nobody is without sin, and therefore we are all susceptible to corruption.

It is our decision on which side we choose to live that makes the difference. For every individual but also society as a whole.