User Score
8.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1055 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Dec 25, 2013
    0
    Overrated crap from the most overrated director with the most overrated actor currently working?
    Nah, not really…. I generally love Martin Scorsese's films, but this film just didn't have any likable characters and three hours was just too long to spend on characters this repulsive.
  2. Dec 27, 2013
    3
    I don't usually review movies but this one really bothered me and I have to share my thoughts. The Wolf of Wall Street is well written, well shot, and clearly well directed overall. The acting is fantastic, especially from Leo He put in one of the best performances I seen in a long time. I have never been so universally approving of how a film was put together yet had such a negative reaction to it.
    I'm a white male and I don't identify as a feminist, but if this film is indicative of the new norm, I may have to start doing so. The misogyny in this film is so unforgiving and goes so unaddressed that it simply cannot just be satire or a cultural mirror. I'm not talking about the hookers either. Repeatedly, women in this film are shown to be unbelievably weak. Sex is their only commodity, beauty is the only thing that matters. When Jack's first wife, with whom he has multiple children, finds him cheating with Naomi, all she can do is cry. We never see her again. She never even mentions their kids! Naomi is worse. Even though she is never presented as anything more than a vapid beauty, she is worshiped. During her most "powerful" scene, the only one where she exerts any kind of force over Jack, she is calling him daddy and giving him blue balls. During the movie, she is completely powerless to address any of Jack's problems with drugs or cheating. We never even see her try. The female lead of the movie is a beautiful accessory and nothing else. All she has to offer him is sex, and she knows it. Even the woman who is ostensibly the most female stockbroker at Jack's firm is weak Jack even gives a teary eyed speech about how she never could have made it if he didn't lend her $25,000 when he gave her the job.
    If the intention of this movie was to wake up people like me, who have probably been watching films like this without batting an eye for years, then Scorcese has succeeded. Many viewers, however, will probably be too taken in by the flashy editing, language, and fantasy to give it a second thought.
    It’s a shame that something this destructive has to come in such a well executed package.
    Expand
  3. Dec 26, 2013
    0
    It's unfortunate that we're now glorifying the same people who brought our country low with the same selfish and socially destructive behaviors depicted in this film.

    Regardless of quality, the Wolf of Wall Street deserves to be doing time for eternity vs. having his disgusting image touted in a film.

    If there is an afterlife, this man will be the first to burn in it.
  4. Dec 26, 2013
    1
    This movie is absolutely terrible. Drags on like crazy. It would have been a lot better if they stuck towards the script of Catch Me If You Can, which they tried, but it turned into more drug information than anything. Never watching again.
  5. Dec 26, 2013
    0
    As a stock broker who makes tens of millions annually, i find this film completely ridiculous! This film is extremely vulgar and only has about ten words other than f**k! The sex scenes are disturbing and i am shock DiCaprio made such a discussing film!! Would not recommend this horrible movie, it is not at all how stock brokers work, take it from a man who makes millions on wall street!
  6. Dec 27, 2013
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. All reviews of Wolf of Wall Street should be liberally peppered with spoilers so the viewing public doesn't waste precious time and money. It's hard to understand why DiCaprio and Scorsese invested so much of themselves in this movie as director, actor and producers of this appalling production. One can assume they teamed up once again because they will most certainly make money hand over fist because this surreal, tasteless, vulgar and immature material does and will continue to appeal to the masses. It's disturbing to realize this production reflects how much cash (and other vices such as drugs, alcohol, sex and vulgarity) are controlling forces in the world. Of course, it's nothing new, but it would be nice to know there are people who value maturity! Most of us willing to a good laugh and we aren't repressed. I do question why there's such a compulsion to rely on the lowest common denominator to sell movie tickets.

    While I do believe reviewers should fill their reviews of the Wolf of Wall Street with spoilers, I firmly believe readers and movie-goers should be able to read a review without learning every detail about a movie or book. However, I must defend those with physical disabilities as a whole and specifically those with Cerebral Palsy. The Wolf of Wall Street includes scene(s) in which DiCaprio and his sidekick, Jonah Hill take copious amounts of old Quaaludes and when they finally start to take affect, the effects are described by DiCaprio as a new level or experience in taking Quaaludes likened to having Cerebral Palsy. As someone who is profoundly affected since birth with Cerebral Palsy, you can be assured such a depiction was not only
    tasteless, wrong but also offensive. As someone born with Cerebral Palsy, I am more than willing to laugh at myself as well. There are times if you don't laugh you'll cry. This was hurtful because in fact, those with Cerebral Palsy are often intelligent, compassionate and productive members of society. I loved my career as a social worker and I cherish being a wife, mother and a grandmother. Those involved with this movie should be ashamed of themselves. I did not leave the movie theater feeling good. I left feeling angry, dirty, demeaned and heartbroken. Normally, I would leave such a vile movie but it seemed so surreal, I kept waiting to see if there was a big payoff at the end. Instead, the movie proved to me it is nothing more than a failure--an enormous flop!!

    I am especially angered because The Wolf of Wall Street had such potential to be an exceptional movie and it's has been poorly promoted. It occurs to me those involved with the movie might indeed be ashamed and elected to do little promotion and instead relied on DiCaprio's and Scorsese's name recognition in Hollywood. In researching the movie, I and many others wrongly assumed the movie was something akin to the movies, Wall Street, Catch Me If You Can with perhaps a dash of Goodfellas. Instead, it was more like, a disgusting remake of Animal House, if that's possible and a disappointing, cartoonish versions of Wall Street and Goodfellas. If I had the opportunity to counsel Mr. Scorsese and Mr. DiCaprio, I would strongly advise them to seek higher caliber projects where they don't work together anytime soon.

    In studying the media about Wolf at Wall Street, it's obvious one of the biggest concerns was merely to learn of an appropriate release date so the movie and the actors would be eligible to compete during the upcoming awards season. I know Leonardo DiCaprio will be deserving of many future Oscars and SAG awards. I also know years from now, Wolf of Wall Street will be a cult favorite but this year Wolf of Wall Street should only win the Razzy.
    Expand
  7. Dec 27, 2013
    0
    I have seen hundreds of movies in my life, but I have only walked out on two fo them. This is one of the two. It is nothing but a piece of trash. We walked out at about the one hour mark, and demanded and received a refund! During the time we were there, we were subjected to every single swear word I have ever heard, and the F word was used between 100 and 200 times! Besides that we were shown 5 or 6 blatant sex acts! This is nothing more than a porn flick in disguise! The theater was only about 1/4 full, but 2 other couples walked out at the same time we did. It is a disgusting piece of trash. At least we got our money back! Expand
  8. Dec 27, 2013
    0
    This movie was horrible! Of the three hours 1:30 was drugs another hour was sex and 30 minutes (generous) of other. Plot?.. Did it exist? The script must have contained the f-word 1000 times. I am not a prude or offended easily but this movie was just down right crude! In a packed theater I noticed many people fall asleep and others just get up and walk out. I stayed to see if the movie ever picked up and was disappointed it never did. I was jealous of those that left. I wasted 3 hours, I'll never get back. It isn't even a renter! This movie could have been an hour long to get its point across but then we wouldn't have had the constant drug abuse and sex shoved down our throats. I've never written a review but this one was so bad I had to! Save your money! Expand
  9. Dec 27, 2013
    0
    I walked out as well. This movie is sooooo bad. Don't waste your money on this crap. I've concluded that Scorcese is the most ridiculously overrated director after seeing his last 3-4 movies. It's all the same garbage. Don't waste your money or time on this.
  10. Dec 30, 2013
    1
    Probably the worst movie I have seen in years. Way to much drugs, sex, and lack of plot. The graphic nature of the sex scenes when they were not needed or added to the story line at all. Pretty distored view of life.
  11. Dec 30, 2013
    0
    We walked out! Right from the beginning it took on a tone of sexual vulgarity and acceptance of drug abuse that was so unacceptable. It is amazing that so many people have rated this movie so highly. We would have walked out sooner except that my wife thought I would not want to make a scene but I am glad she finally asked. I was waiting for some sanity to prevail but it was not looking like it would. We stayed for about 45 minutes. Expand
  12. Dec 28, 2013
    0
    Let me start by saying I considered Goodfellas the best film of the past 30 years. Normally I would call Martin one of the top directors of the era BUT this movie is terrible on every level. Gratuitous sexual humor that goes on forever to the point of it becoming a soft-core porno! Nothing remotely redeeming in any character. And I generally always come out of a Scorsese movie quoting at least a few great lines I can't think of anything said in this movie at all. It is so bad that it now makes me wonder about Scorsese and his career in total! Be warned and skip this awful rubbish. Expand
  13. Dec 27, 2013
    3
    Leonardo is obviously a great actor but he played a disgusting junkie who was very hard to connect to. Plus the whole hookers and quad pills was overused, we get it you ef hookers you're soo cool and rich. The real guy, Jordan Belfort, is a hideous swamp donkey and for sure has a small penis.
  14. Jan 13, 2014
    4
    The moral of the story is unclear and the running time is self-indulgent. There may be an underlying message of "everyone is corrupt" or the "this is America" line might be the significant moral, but overall this film has no real value.

    Essentially one hour of the three hours of running time is devoted to shots of debauchery, naked women, sex, drugs, more drugs, and lavish lifestyles,
    plus more naked women. The plethora of "filler" content made the film seem to go on forever as I often found myself looking at my watch. Obviously, Jordan Belfort sold his story rights to this film and a lot of the debauchery actually happened so you may say "but it isn't unrealistic." And you're likely completely correct.

    However, the real question may not be the realistic nature of the story, but whether a story like this deserves to be told - all at the financial benefit of the criminal. He may have said he's giving all of his profit to those who he harmed in doing all the acts this film glorifies, but the FBI says he actually has failed to give much of anything of the $1M plus he's made off of the rights alone to anyone but himself.

    As for the film as a stand alone:
    The characters range from unappealing to appalling. The plot is schizophrenic. The moral of the story seems to be immoral behaviour has no real consequence. The running time could have been 3 minutes and I would have benefited just as much from this film.

    If you like watching a 2000s hip-hop music video staring white guys, mixed with soft-core porn for 3 hours - watch this film.
    Otherwise - skip this film and find something useful to do with 3 hours of your life.
    Expand
  15. amh
    Mar 6, 2014
    3
    I just thought this was a boring movie. Negative reviews of Wolf will fault it for its glorification of immorality and repugnant characters. But there are plenty of great movies about people we hate. Here, there was no story arc--no difference between hour 1 and hour 3. The voiceover was a repeat of Wiseguys. How many times will Scorcese make the same movie? Points scored for Leo's performance. But the supporting cast--yawn. DeNiro had Sharon (Casino). Depp had Penelope (Blow). Who cared about the Duchess of Bay Ridge? And the bust? No drama there (was that the yellow note in the plastic bag? Did Dannie rat out Jordan?). To all directors, young and old--plot is important! It can't all be glitz, powder, and t&a! Expand
  16. Jan 2, 2014
    0
    A paean to hedonism of the most vulgar type. I kept waiting for some redeeming feature, but none came. Should be X-rated if there is a line between this and pornography, I couldn't find it. It is just squirmy, cringe-worthy sleaziness.
  17. Dec 25, 2013
    4
    In a movie about the excesses of Wall street brokers in the 1990s "the Wolf Of Wall Street" is excessive in all aspects starting with a movie that, running at 3 hours, could have easily been cut by an hour. You will see at least 3-4 scenes more than you need to showing the excess of drugs whether cocaine, Quaaludes or whatever else is on hand. After one scene of fellatio it is almost quarantined that there will be a dozen more. If you miss that full frontal nude scene--women only, of course--just wait a few minutes as there are so many repeats of the scene, using different women, over the three hours you aren't really missing anything. Whether it be orgies of sex or luxury or curse words it almost makes the story meaningless. It does leave the question why a man who owns a 170 foot yacht wouldn't own his own jet or at least rent one to go to Las Vegas but then the excessive orgy on the plane wouldn't have the same outcome. It is one of the many missteps in this film.

    "The Wolf Of Wall Street" is based on the book, and true story, by Jordan Belfort who made his fortune during the 1990s when the stock market made millionaires of many young men. Terence Winter wrote the screenplay and Martin Scorsese directed the film working with Leonardo DiCaprio for the fifth time.

    DiCaprio plays his second rich man this year, after starring as Gatsby, but Jordan Belfort is more interested in himself than he is in a woman or women, though he has sex with many of them. He also has 2 slapstick scenes, one with Jonah Hill, that shows his comedic talent and he is much more relaxed in this film than he has been in awhile. This is one of his better performances though he too has excessive, unnecessary scenes and goes a little overboard here and there.

    Jonah Hill, as Belfort's best friend and business partner, gets too hammy here and there to raise the empathy of the audience to accept the fact that he is not a 'bad' person. Kyle Chandler plays the FBI man who doesn't seem capable of a smile. The women in the film are there to play the wives, mothers, girlfriends and hookers. Would you accept Rob Reiner as DiCaprio's father? He does a good job as does Jean Dujardin, Jon Favreau and Jon Bernthal.

    With "Magic Mike", "Mud", "Dallas Buyers Club" Matthew McConaughey adds the cherry to the top of his winning acting streak in "The Wolf Of Wall Street" playing Mark Hanna, a very successful Wall street broker who seems to have invented excessiveness. His role calls for him to be over the top and he takes it just far enough.

    As in most Scorsese movies all the production values are first rate except for the editing in this one. It seems as if the director was rushed and the picture was being released before he finished his job. Whether he would have cut the movie and removed a lot of the excessive excessivenes, if not by an hour at least by 30 minutes, hopefully he will when it comes out on DVD or the viewer can fast forward through all the repetitions.
    Expand
  18. Feb 20, 2014
    0
    I do not know where to start with this one because I can not find enough adjectives to describe this movie. I have not walked out on a movie in 30 years but I did this on this piece of garbage about 1 hour and 15 minuets in to this because I had no desire to see how this abnormal movie ended. There is something wrong with a society who looks upon this horrific trash and considers it entertainment but worst of all likes it (baring the 65 or so user critics that feel similar to me). It is little more than a lesson in how degenerate and disgusting human beings can be. I found nothing positive to say about this one. It was extremely boring because it was the same disarming behavior over and over and over etc, etc, etc. (sex, drugs, greed of money). What a piece of junk. Another critic said this was just bad porn and I can agree with that. Expand
  19. Jan 8, 2014
    0
    I absolutely adored Shutter Island and was hoping to see something similar here an intellectual and comic drama. I was incredibly disappointed. I walked out after 45 minutes of glorified porn.
  20. Jan 5, 2014
    3
    Moral decadence of the worst kind in a nihilistic movie which lasts much longer than its actual plot. At least Margot Robbie is beautiful.
    argonautis.eu
  21. Feb 23, 2014
    2
    I really thought this movie was going to be great just because of Leonardo Dicaprio. He has given stellar performance over the years and deserves to be recognized. After watching the film, I was so disappointed. The movie did not justice to his acting as well as Martin Scorsese. The film was poorly written and self indulgent. There was some good moments but it was overshadowed by the profanity and lewd act. It was too overdone and you get lost at the actual story of the film. What is worst is Jonah Hill and his usual self. He was annoying and unforgivable. Expand
  22. Dec 29, 2013
    2
    This movie is one big snore, with repetitive scenes going on and on without benefit of a judicious editor.
    DiCaprio screams and curses but makes zero impact. No coincidence that the only times the movie is the least bit watchable are the few times his obnoxious character shuts up. The woman playing his dumbbell wife is pure plastic and Jonah Hill is basically playing the same dork he
    plays in 90 percent of his movies, Very disappointing. I expected much more than this drivel from Scorsese. Expand
  23. Dec 31, 2013
    2
    Let me start by saying Leonardo DiCaprio has always been my favorite actor and the cast including Jonah Hill did make the movie somewhat comedic. Overall, though, the movie seemed to lack it's storyline at times. From the beginning it seemed the whole movie was nudity, sex and drugs. The very first scene is DiCaprio snorting cocaine off a woman's butt. I'm not a prude but if I wanted to watch a porn I definitely wouldn't be paying money to do so. The movie was close to 3 hours and felt never ending after 2. I've never disliked a movie DiCaprio starred in so I was disappointed after watching. Expand
  24. Jan 1, 2014
    0
    Expected so much more from DiCaprio and this film. Reviews reflected either love or hate for this movie and now I know why. How can the overuse of scenes filled with drugs, sex, profanity, and hedonism be considered anything more than a waste of time. The goal here was to stereotype the business world which is no different in Hollywood. Will this movie profit from portraying such crap? If this is considered by the Academy for any recognition it will be a sad day for the movie industry! If you feel better about renting a R rated movie than grabbing the X rated then here is your pleasure. It isnt worth the rental price! Expand
  25. Jan 5, 2014
    0
    Done in a Goodfella's type of formula this film could not even hold the smallest of birthday candles to it. The scenes were painfully long and drawn out to the point of me wanting to yell out "ok I get the idea can we move on?". I made it as far as 2 hours and fifteen minutes and had to leave. What I saw in that 135 minutes could have been well covered in half that time. Rather than torture myself with the remaining 45 minutes I'm sure someone will tell me the ending in 25 words or less. This topic was already covered in Wall Street and Boiler Room. Rent those and save your time and money. Expand
  26. Jan 18, 2014
    0
    Only idiotic, profane, and completely degenerate people would like this movie. For the rest of us, this movie was a 3 hour non-stop tour of meaningless sex, drugs, and profanity - all laced in the finest of stupidity. I beg you to trust me here, save your time and money and don't be fooled by any of the "good" reviews... unless, of course, you have no soul.
  27. Jan 25, 2014
    0
    I am not the sort of person to bag anything, but have created an Account just to avoid people from spending their money and 3 hours on utter Rubbish.
    If I had to watch Porn, I wouldn't spend money and 3 hours of my precious time.
    Walked out in 2 hours and wanted a refund. Love Leonardo, but have to admit that this is the worst Movie I've ever watched.
  28. Feb 22, 2014
    0
    Why was I hoping to have LEO'S character get arrested immediately and put an end to this EPICALLY BORING AND CHARACTERLSS movie...Martin Scorses realy blew this ever MERRYR GO ROUND MOVIE....the movie which is like a plane on a runway going here and there instead of flying in the sky....IDIOTIC MOVIE STUPID CHARACTERS AND UTTERLESS STUPIDITY FOR OUR YOUNG GENERATION WHO REALLY NEEDS POSITIVE ROLE MODELS !!! Expand
  29. Jan 17, 2014
    2
    Over the top, gimmicky nonsense. It's intent on proving to you how hedonistic an morally bankrupt these wall street types are but it does so at the expense of realism. Are you honestly telling me they had to a have a fu!k free zone the office? That's rubbish. This is just Di Caprio being bland as per usual, all dressed up as art, whereas it's really just a hyped up, bland garbage which gives us no new insight into the human condition. Expand
  30. Jan 23, 2014
    1
    Absolutely terrible. Overly indulgent at 3 hours - I get it (his life was just so), but that's no excuse for about an hour and a half of extraneous material. Inexcusably sympathetic towards criminals (99% shows their debauchery, 1% shows their justice). Excessively misogynistic. And worst of all (aside from being boring) is that it feeds the ego of a true scumbag...he remains famous, he gets a sympathetic day in the sun, his victims don't even get the recognition of a name. Absolutely atrocious.

    This could have been a great piece if...it spent half as much time personalizing Belfort's victim's as it did cataloging his hedonistic excesses...if it gave any insight into the motives and methods of the investigative team...if it treated sympathetic characters with sympathy (his wife, the lead detective who ends up on a subway, etc.)...if it chronicled his fall instead of showing us 2 minutes of a sleazy sales seminar...if it had a coda listing all the people who were ruined as the credits rolled (maybe it did; I didn't stick around)...if it was anything but a free pass for the scumbags involved.

    This should be the movie that Scorsese and DiCaprio later tell us they are ashamed of. Instead, it is nominated for an Oscar. Was there no other worthy movie this year?
    Expand
  31. Feb 18, 2014
    3
    This movie would have been much better if it were an hour shorter. While there were some good parts to the movie, it was bundled with lots of unnecessary scenes which didn't need to be there or dragged on too long.

    Quite a few over the top scenes, while the movie needs to show the lifestyle the stock brokers participate in this could have been done in half the time to the same effect. I
    would watch it again if they re-cut down to half the time, where they would still be able to resemble the same plot and get across the same message. Expand
  32. Mar 25, 2014
    0
    How come this flick has a user score so high when there are so many negative reviews? I couldn't even stick it out past the halfway point. The interminable scenes of screaming and nastiness. Who cares? A waste of time and talent. Had no clue what was going on in terms of real story, just a bunch of scenes of excess that overall were just boring in the end. i agree with the crap analysis, how does this stuff get made? Expand
  33. Jan 26, 2014
    2
    To paraphrase," what do you do when you have so much money that you don't know how to spend them?"...Well you make a movie like this one. Everything here is meaningless and irrelevant. The Wolf is rare thing. Probably the worst movie Scorsese has made to date.
  34. Feb 4, 2014
    0
    Worst movie ever! First, that film is just a bad porn.
    I just cant belive in 80% of the story. Leonardo di Caprio is an amazing actor, and this movie has others good actors.

    But the story is just stupid and crazy. Is just an amended biografy of a thief. I was count down the time to the end.

    The movie show like crime is good and funny! No sense.
  35. Feb 18, 2014
    1
    Douchebag porn at it's finest. How does a criminal this boring get two movies? How does this washed up fraud get Scorsese to direct a film about his drug addicted, morally corrupt lifestyle? 'Murica, that's how.
  36. Dec 29, 2013
    1
    Really, is this a 100 millions budget for this movie? I can send anyone a list of 100 millions wise ways to spend 100 million dollars, for free!. First of all, there is about 100 minutes of movie that can be reduce to 10 minutes top, after a good editing process. Holy cow, what a waste of time and resources. I never expected an actor like Leonardo DiCaprio was able to work in this kind of crappy movie. I did not recommend this movie. The movie is too long, is slow in the development, the script was a nice lullaby. Cinematography is fine, locations is fine, and the sound. The rest, I mean acting, script and edition was a simple piece of crap. Jordan Belfort is just a a slag of the society. I will never, ever, spent a dollar telling the story of a man like him. Expand
  37. Jan 12, 2014
    0
    Absolutely no reason this movie should be 3 hours long. 1 hour too long at least... The sex and drugs was way too over the top. Clearly over compensating for a weak plot and poor character development, putting it nicely. 3 hours I can never get back,
  38. Jan 1, 2014
    1
    HARD CORE PORN, that made it to the big screen The story could have been told in 1/2 hour, over 2 hours of Bad Drug Use & Sex Can't believe this was a true story, and that people really live this way. Can't imagine bill gates, steve jobs etc having this type of life style. There was nothing funny about this movie, watching a Stoned man crawl and then snort coke to get his wits about himself... Expand
  39. Jan 6, 2014
    0
    An excess of excessively excessive excess. Yes, that's what watching this movie feels like. Unnecessary redundancy. An over-the-top, repetitive, sleaze fest with no heart, no point, no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I kept hoping 1/2 way through and 3/4 way through that something intelligent was going to develop. Just more snorting coke out of more butt holes. A really unfortunate way to spend 3, yes, every bit of 3 hours. I understand it's a true story. If that's the excuse for this, next time, Mr Scorsese, please tell a true story about someone we can care about. Expand
  40. Jan 12, 2014
    4
    Had great hopes going in as I love these kind of self-made man movies with for better or worse endings, but felt the storytelling in "Wolf" rambled on loosely like an elderly relative getting carried away with less important details of a story from days gone by. No tightness to the direction whatsoever and felt very little connection to any of the characters, not because of any morality reasons but most seemed just simply underdeveloped and uninteresting.

    This movie was done in the style of Goodfellas and seeing this just made me appreciate even more how amazing that film is. For example DiCaprio occasionally "breaks character" to talk to the audience as narrator (a la Ray Liotta's character). In Goodfellas this to me was striking in the moments and way he would break dialogue, in this film it just felt bland and could care less who the character was talking to. Also a good chunk of the movie deals with the his world falling apart around him but felt little empathy or urgency surrounding it. Would I normally compare any movie to one such as Goodfellas, no. And I still don't hold it to the same standard but when it's made by the same guy who is clearly trying to do a modern day version of it, I thought it felt way short.
    Expand
  41. Jan 20, 2014
    1
    This movie deeply upset me. Not only it shows disgusting excesses, but I don't understand how crooks and fraudsters can be considered ''entertaining '' and ''comedy.'' How about the people they fooled? Would these people not want to rip off the big screen? So not only did this **** steal money from people, but also is becoming a celebrity thanks to Leonardo Di Caprio. How can you give a Golden Globe for this ****ty protagonist?

    And have to say the blonde trophy wife shows that the women these brokers date are lower than a doormat. The movie left me disgusted and wanting to throw up.
    Expand
  42. Jan 26, 2014
    4
    Well, Maybe you would like to go and see this one for its appealing sex, drugs and money promises. However, the film is intriguingly skillful. It uses Scorsese's mastery and that of course along with an extremely able line up of actors and crew in virtually all aspects of film making except one.
    The question what does the film tell?

    To make a long story short, it basically is a sales
    pitch.
    Scorsese sells us - no matter if we are hungry-for-success-sales-persons or such that feel disadvantaged by the ongoings of financial crisis or stock market in general seeking for insight or if we just want to know what's behind it - he sells us the life style of this super-dooper-bigwig-broker probably as good as it gets.
    It's a train of thrill and excitement going uphill and there is a sense of tweaked decency in context of either keeping the game going or not being true to oneself.

    Having said that, the film is based on the book of the very broker, Jordan Belfort and, thus, serves as a commercial for it, not mentioning the probability of royalties paid to Mr. Belfort along with the film.
    Hence, the film reflects Mr. Belfort's perspective. A salesman who proficiently peddles his story and along with it his view of the world. The insight material and sadly the film making art too chiefly serves as bait to catch our attention.
    The man behind this broker's features remains in the dark. There may be a lot of so called private matters, nonetheless, when it comes to questions of Belfort's identity the film draws a blank. Nothing. What drives him? Given the vehicle nature of money, the mystery prevails about where he wants it to take him.

    So it is cut down to a fast ride with nowhere to go. That can be fun, sure. But a three hour movie of the world's most celebrated film maker? I don't know.
    Why could Belfort go so far away from himself? Why do only external limits seem to have an effect in his world, where and when and how did he loose touch with seemingly all of his inner values, feelings? Such an obviously empty person is hard to bear, despite the excellent performance of Leonardo Di Caprio. So isn't there any human left inside this broker-dummy? The film doesn't tell.
    Even when Belfort finally hits rock bottom, how does he deal with real life, his poor past, relatives, friends, loneliness? Well the film doesn't tell. It's cut to tennis in the joint, and cut to a continuous selling career. In this respect, the film, this form of the American Dream without any inner cultural, emotional response, even seemingly proposing the utter irrelevance of such things, unwillingly, is a horror film.

    I do not want to spoil your movie night, nevertheless, I have the feeling it's not necessary to embellish Mr. Belfort's memoirs any further. So, go see it if you must, it can be fun, then again, you might as well save the money for a rainy day.
    Expand
  43. Jan 29, 2014
    3
    The Wolf of Wall Street might have ended up being OK if it weren't for Martin Scorsese's lack of restraint. He somehow makes endless sex, drugs, violence, crime, etc. feel like sitting through a boring lecture. Three hours is most definitely WAY too long for any movie, especially this one. It was just scene after scene of the same thing. The acting, however, redeemed it a little, and there are a few genuinely funny moments throughout the film. Expand
  44. Feb 2, 2014
    0
    We hated this movie. No likable characters. So slow. Not fun. The acting rang true, but everyone reacted the same exact way no matter what their background.
  45. Feb 5, 2014
    0
    created acct just for this movie. wow I was so bored! I went with friends so I didn't walk out but truly we just waited it out because we were too nice to leave. That was truly a few hrs of my life wasted.. This was a slow moving no plot porno flick. I truly wonder what they spent money on while making it maybe the drugs they were using or the food? I was truly amazed that this movie couldn't have been made for around 30k ok they did have to pay the stars. I'm simply amazed that there is not one funny or intense scene it is just boring boring dullness better off to go see a real porno movie with a little plot. Expand
  46. Lyn
    Mar 30, 2014
    3
    Kind of shocked at how uninteresting this Scorsese bacchanal was. Did not learn anything. Did not feel anything. Spotting a guy from "The Walking Dead" (Jon Bernthal) offered the only moment of surprise. Deluge of F-words was expected of course -- look! Scorsese's still so edgy! -- but I didn't expect to be bored. EVERY other Oscar best picture nominee was better than this, along with some not nominated. All that said: Yes, DiCaprio delivered a strong performance, including great physical comedy in a scene when he's incapacitated by quaaludes. Expand
  47. May 20, 2014
    3
    Scorsese has never recaptured his great years of Taxi Driver and Raging Bull. Any film that lionises a low life like Jordan Belfort does not deserve a good review. Jordan Belfort is, was and always will be pond scum and a bottom feeder. This movie celebrates his disgusting deeds in a sycophantic Hollywood romanticism that so many American films suffer from. I give it a few points for good camera work and acting. As usual the script has a lot of room for improvement. Expand
  48. Jan 26, 2014
    3
    Oh, was I expecting something totally different...

    The Wolf of Wallstreet sells itself with this image of a fun, witty and well put together film with great lead actor and director. But in the end it`s yet another dumb gross humor mess with terrible pacing, scene after scene that goes nowhere, really long takes of Jonah hill "improvising"... I felt like watching another "the hangover"
    sequel.

    I knew nothing about the book beforehand so i felt ripped off with what i got... just like DiCaprio's customers.
    Expand
  49. Jun 29, 2014
    1
    The 3 hour length was not justified. For a movie with so little plot, characters, or anything new to say, this film should've been 2 hours at the most.
    It was overlong, boring, and pointless. I seriously don't know how Pain and Gain can get panned while Wolf of Wall Street gets praised considering they're both the same movie.
  50. Jan 3, 2014
    1
    This movie should have been called The Wolf of Red Street instead of Wall Street. Why you people want to help a fraudster who is currently in disguise of a motivational speaker???
  51. Mar 29, 2014
    4
    So over the top with the party, party, partying it got really boring. No one to identify with because they were all jerks. Skipping through the chapters and watching the first 30 seconds of each was the best way to watch this overdone gag fest. A decent editor might have made a fun romp out of it.
  52. May 5, 2014
    3
    The mutant rapist cannibals from The Hills have Eyes were more likable than these characters . Casino Goodfellas and The Wolf are the same in pace, flashbacks and repulsive human beings. Scorsese is a master of making us hate people but why make us hate your movie . There was nothing new .
  53. Mar 24, 2014
    3
    The worst sin of this movie is that it drags along, self indulging in drugs abuse scenes and unsuccessfully trying to depict sex scenes with some more meaning than soft porn. At some points it just plainly goes overboard to a "fear and loathing in Las Vegas" style and zero-meaning scenes.
    The filler about drugs, sex and testosterone takes the stage away from the real movie, ending up
    probably pleasing just those who we're looking for it, and not much more.

    In fact, there's actually something more to the movie, but while it's well depicted by a good director and actors, in the end it results quite thin and uncertain, leaving a sense of emptiness for how the movie evolves.

    Just like most of Scorsese movies, good premises, excellent technique, but a vacuous result.

    Feels more like a long video clip.
    Expand
  54. Jan 5, 2014
    4
    I love the films of Martin Scorsese but I wish Thelma Schoonmaker his editor, would have cut an hour off this run-on spectacle of greed, sex and drugs that is suppose to shock us. Like the Aunt Margret character who states at one point... yeah I lived through the 60's. I was feeling like Scorsese thought his audience wasn't sophisticated enough to understand the excess these guys thrived on. I think we got that in the first half hour. Too bad we don't get to see a little more dimension of this guy, but instead time is wasted on the same old repetitive behavior over and over again sex, drugs, sex, drugs, greed, greed, greed. This movie had so many great things going for it but just goes over the top to try to be funny but instead is just plain obnoxious. Too bad so many talents were wasted because of the lack of tightening up and cutting scenes and developing other characters to counter the balance of the the over-all story. It was actually fun to sit through once but I don't think this will be one in my DVD collection. Expand
  55. Jan 7, 2014
    2
    I made this account specifically to say that this is the worst, overrated, tone deaf movie of 2013 (and I assure you I haven't forgotten about "Spring Breakers").

    "Leo" and "Marty" can claim all they like in interviews that their intention was to make a movie about an amoral douchecanoe without judgment. However, in so reserving such judgment, they effectively sanction every vile action
    depicted (on which I think enough has already been written).

    Storytellers have a responsibility to do more than make something that's technically sound (which this movie assuredly is hence the 2 rating, rather than 0) they have a responsibility to tell a story worth telling. And, unless you're trying to relate to simply the white, rich, racist, misogynistic, megalomaniacs of the US (of which I have no doubt there are many), I just don't think this story's worth telling.

    What an offensive disappointment.
    Expand
  56. Jan 15, 2014
    4
    I am a gigantic Scorsese fan. I go back to Mean Streets. There is no problem with the direction and the acting is top notch, especially Jonah Hill who keeps getting better with each performance. It is a true adaptation of Belfort's novel. The pace can be electrifying at times, so good you forget the 3 hour running time. Cinematically, it has subtle moments of genius. So why a mediocre review? Personal prejudice with the subject matter. While watching this movie, you wait for redemption or at least true punishment. You expect Jake LaMotta to live a sad life, Henry Hill to crumble and Joe Pesci was doomed in both Goodfellas and Casino. They were satisfying endings because in the moral mind of the audience, they reaped what they had sown. I don't believe I am spoiling anything when I say Belfort has not really been given, what most of our recently recession minds would consider, a gigantic cross to bear. I believe the mixed reviews you are seeing have a lot to do with the time of release. Most people won't get past the " These are the clowns that killed the economy" feeling. The Wolf comes at you hard and doesn't let up. It is a spot-on take of the excess of boiler room bandits. Movie making wise, Scorsese remains a master and his muse DiCaprio brilliant. Another time and another place, maybe I would enjoy it. For me, it was too exhausting. It was excess on the excess. I know it was real to the core, I have met some of the characters. These are empty people. I guess I am just at that stage in life where I want to escape when I go to the movies. The Wolf is great film making, but it is also a horrendous story about horrendous people. Expand
  57. Jan 21, 2014
    1
    I thought the previews were the only parts of this 3 hour long movie that were clean but after watching some again after seeing the movie I now know that some previews had to be dubbed just to find enough dialogue to leave out the F word. I can't think of a single movie I have watched that I felt like had too much and TOTALLY unnecessary cussing, sex, and drugs but this movie is it. It is at least an hour too long as well and wastes a ton of time. This movie isn't about what Jordan Belfort did with stocks and cheating people AT ALL. I spent the last hour of the movie looking at my watch and had I realized it was 3 hours long I would have left with the third of the theater that got up and walked out within the first hour.

    It gets a one because there were a few seriously hilarious parts of the movie but I wouldn't even recommend most people get Netflix to send it to them when it comes out on dvd.
    Expand
  58. Jan 28, 2014
    3
    Awful. The plot could barely fill a 90-minute film, but Scorsese blows it up to 3 hours. About 2 hours are spent on portraying / celebrating the decadence of the main characters. The story is a boring sequence of cliches, the entire thing is predictable from beginning to end, without ever having heard about the guy it's based on.

    So, obviously it is going to score big at the Oscars.


    Jonah Hill has a great performance, though.
    Expand
  59. Apr 13, 2014
    1
    I had to really struggle to give this move a 1. It is one of the absolute worst movies I have ever seen. I actually did not know that Martin Scorcese was the Director, until I noticed the credits-in fact, if I had noticed the movie cover and seen it was a Scorcese film I'd be even more bamboozled than I am. Dear Martin Scorcese-you can do better that this! I saw this loser of a film after buying it on DVD at Target. Can someone please tell me how I can get my $19.99 back? This pure load of garbage is called a black comedy. I'm not sure why-they are a few laughs here and there, but by and large it's so overbearing and burdensome that its really tough to describe. It is also 179 minutes long-nearly 3 hours-so to be honest, I have no clue how I actually was able to sit through the entire movie. If I had paid to go to the movie when it was in a theater, I definitely would would have walked out. Some advice: do not buy this clunker on DVD-do not go to a theater who may be playing this dud. Spend your money on a decent sandwich or burger somewhere with a drink of your choice. Don't waste 3 hours of time and money on this one! Expand
Metascore
75

Generally favorable reviews - based on 47 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 35 out of 47
  2. Negative: 2 out of 47
  1. Reviewed by: Richard Corliss
    Dec 28, 2013
    50
    By buying the pitch that its central character’s escapades were the stuff of mesmerizing drama or comedy, Scorsese, Winter and DiCaprio reveal themselves as dupes — the latest in a long line of clever folks swindled by Jordan Belfort.
  2. Reviewed by: Andrew O'Hehir
    Dec 28, 2013
    100
    This telling of the tale possesses enormous cinematic energy and a killer supporting cast full of hilarious delights.
  3. Reviewed by: Joe Morgenstern
    Dec 28, 2013
    50
    Any meaningful perspective on the greedfest of the period is obscured by the gleefulness of the depiction.