Paramount Pictures | Release Date: December 25, 2013
6.8
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1837 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,299
Mixed:
136
Negative:
402
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
5
thegamermaimerMay 11, 2014
Very underwhelming movie, especially from the likes of Scorsese and DiCaprio. I may have liked it more if it wasn't so preachy about how 'cool' it is to be materialistic.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
BHBarryJan 7, 2014
“The Wolf of Wall Street” was directed by Martin Scorcese and stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Jonah Hill in the true story of Jordan Belfort, the self-made millionaire who operated a stock brokerage telemarketing operation that ultimately led to“The Wolf of Wall Street” was directed by Martin Scorcese and stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Jonah Hill in the true story of Jordan Belfort, the self-made millionaire who operated a stock brokerage telemarketing operation that ultimately led to his ruin and the ruin of his company and his duped investors. I’m no fan of Mr. DiCaprio who, no matter what adult role he plays, always reminds me of a little boy wearing his father’s felt hat. However, in this film, Mr. DiCaprio overcomes my previewing prejudices and is quite believable in his role as Mr. Belfort but, unfortunately, that’s where the kudos end. The film is 3 hours long but seems more like 6. Thelma Schoonmaker is being touted by the producers for “Best Film Editing” but her work product, at least to this viewer, is virtually unnoticed. The film is filled with gratuitous sex scenes that are more crude than craft and actually get in the way of the story and plot. Orgies may have their place in depicting a scene in a Roman harem but they simply detract from the film and like most of the unneeded scenes, add to the uncomfortable length of the picture. I give the film a 5 and recommend that, if you do go to see it, bring lunch and/or dinner, although the raunchy and tasteless scenes will probably destroy any appetite you might otherwise have had. Expand
5 of 7 users found this helpful52
All this user's reviews
6
stoknyJan 22, 2014
I am in general a fan of Scorsese movies, and Leo is also one of my favorite actors so I really wanted to like this movie but honestly it just wasn't that great. Granted, there were some very funny moments but most of it just seemed to dragI am in general a fan of Scorsese movies, and Leo is also one of my favorite actors so I really wanted to like this movie but honestly it just wasn't that great. Granted, there were some very funny moments but most of it just seemed to drag on aimlessly for hours. They do not even really explain what is going on plot wise or what they are really doing. They make mention of several loose themes but pretty much the entire movie is just a bunch of rich d-bags doing drugs, having sex, and making fun of each other. It's okay for a while but just got old to me. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
5
AxgrinderFeb 7, 2014
Wolf of Wall Street is one of my top 3 picks for most over-rated movie of the year (after Inside Llewyn Davis and Fruitvale Station). It’s a portrayal of Wall Street in the 1980’s. If you were alive and over 18 back then you already know thisWolf of Wall Street is one of my top 3 picks for most over-rated movie of the year (after Inside Llewyn Davis and Fruitvale Station). It’s a portrayal of Wall Street in the 1980’s. If you were alive and over 18 back then you already know this was a time of excess, immorality and corruption. Scorsese presents all this in truly over-the-top fashion, while offering no insight or enlightenment about any of it. At 3 hours, the movie is way, way too long. It drags, in part, because several scenes are repeated over and over. The movie also borrows heavily from previous Scorsese movies, especially Goodfellas, and you may find yourself saying, “I’ve seen this before.” What Wolf lacks in originality, Scorsese tries to make up for through excess. Despite lots of beautiful naked women, Scorsese amps the level of cursing, drug use and orgies to the point where it actually becomes boring and monotonous. Impossible, you say? I wish! Still want to see this move, but need an excuse? Thinking of playing the “my girlfriend is a Leonardo DiCaprio fan” card? Don’t, she’s going to be disappointed, too. Leo’s not very sexy when he’s on Quaaludes (frequently) or when he’s repeatedly cheating on his wives (constantly). Whether you’re male or female, it’s hard to feel much affinity with DiCaprio’s character (Jordan Belfort) and DiCaprio’s acting, while physical in nature (think Matthew Perry-The Whole Nine Yards), isn’t compelling. Jonah Hill’s portrayal of Donnie Azoff provides some laughs, but ultimately his character isn’t very likeable either. The movie is so uninspiring the only thoughts it provokes are along the lines of, “If I had that much money, there’s no way I would have screwed things up so badly.” This movie is for hard-core Scorsese fans only. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
6
StevieB212Dec 26, 2013
I saw the trailers. I was all in. The movies was going to be bigger than life: ride the tail of a major swindler, see what life was like among the obscenely rich and luxurious. The film is uneven: it's bigger than life, but it's also sadI saw the trailers. I was all in. The movies was going to be bigger than life: ride the tail of a major swindler, see what life was like among the obscenely rich and luxurious. The film is uneven: it's bigger than life, but it's also sad and painful to watch, and it's also funny. There's lots of great scenes, but it just doesn't hang together. I was willing to bet on a winner by Scorsese. Lots of amazing performances. Leonardo DiCaprio has never been better. He's in great shape. At times, he reminded me of a young Jack Nicholson. Jonah Hill is great, and steady through out. Some wonderful small gems of parts played by Matthew McConaughey, (who doesn't seem fully recovered from the Dallas Buyers Club), Rob Reiner, Joanna Lumley and the French handsome leading man, Jean Dujardin. The film made me feel as though I'd been taken for a ride, and it's too long ride at that, at 3 hours. Expand
3 of 5 users found this helpful32
All this user's reviews
5
tjsageDec 29, 2013
Ignore reviews that have very low ratings. They know nothing about this industry and assume that their opinion makes some difference. There is much drug and sex action in this film so if that is not with you, don't see it. If you want to seeIgnore reviews that have very low ratings. They know nothing about this industry and assume that their opinion makes some difference. There is much drug and sex action in this film so if that is not with you, don't see it. If you want to see what it was really like and can deal with drugs, sex, and alcohol and the truth about the times in this business, see it.

I did this very type of thing for about 30 years starting in 1984 for The then largest Merrill and moved up to the Swiss banks like UBS eventually. i did get licensed and knew many people that only wanted to make for themselves and they did. The pressure to "smile and dial" was right on in the film and we all made money and spent it like mad. I went through the crash of '87 and many others. We drank a lot, had sex a lot, many used drugs a lot, and went very nuts. The penny stock trash was something that actually did happen and still does. You could know nothing about finances, and investment planning, but if you could sell, that is all that mattered. Another great film that is right on about this is Boiler Room with many stars and shows how nasty brokers can get.

Don't bring children or people totally against the reality of drugs, booze, n boobs. It is long and could be shorter but is worth seeing. Just stay through the whole thing.
Expand
3 of 5 users found this helpful32
All this user's reviews
5
khoinJan 2, 2014
This might be the weakest movie Martin Scorsese has ever done. I'm a huge Marty fan. I've literally seen everything the guy has done. This movie just missed the mark in so many areas. I couldn't engage with any of the characters. I had noThis might be the weakest movie Martin Scorsese has ever done. I'm a huge Marty fan. I've literally seen everything the guy has done. This movie just missed the mark in so many areas. I couldn't engage with any of the characters. I had no idea what motivated these characters other than money. It couldn't have been that simple. Damn! Expand
5 of 9 users found this helpful54
All this user's reviews
5
NedRyerson1Feb 18, 2014
The Wolf of Wall Street was really disappointing and I'm a big fan of Martin Scorsese. I mean the movie is fun and catches you for a while, but after two hours seeing nothing more but drugs abuse and undiscriminated sex activity it becomesThe Wolf of Wall Street was really disappointing and I'm a big fan of Martin Scorsese. I mean the movie is fun and catches you for a while, but after two hours seeing nothing more but drugs abuse and undiscriminated sex activity it becomes boring. The same message of excess could be transmitted with a quarter or less of what is shown in the film. When the protagonist finally is crushed by his lifestyle you expect the most amazing and genius part of a classic Scorsese's picture, the fall of the character until his destruction. However this thing does not occur at anytime; its true that he lost important things but there is nothing more. In that sense this film is not like his other ones, for example Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas and The Departed. That enormous learning about life does not fit within this story and that's a shame because it could. What saves the movie is DiCaprio performance, although he never gives a bad one; the edition is marvelous as always and all the scenarios that are used are amazing. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
5
edkargirDec 25, 2013
Not top Scorsese, I wish he had used a different way of telling his story than the use of voice over like he did in the much better Goodfellas. Film is too long at 3 hrs and it needed a strong female character. The film is well acted andNot top Scorsese, I wish he had used a different way of telling his story than the use of voice over like he did in the much better Goodfellas. Film is too long at 3 hrs and it needed a strong female character. The film is well acted and looks great. Expand
6 of 14 users found this helpful68
All this user's reviews
4
chrisyaseenJan 13, 2014
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.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
3 of 9 users found this helpful36
All this user's reviews
4
GreatMartinDec 25, 2013
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 scenesIn 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
3 of 11 users found this helpful38
All this user's reviews
4
GnomeChomskyJan 12, 2014
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 aHad 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
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
4
deetoeJan 26, 2014
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 andWell, 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
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
5
VitoPowerDec 30, 2013
I really don't know what to think about this movie: it has incredible actors that deliver flawless performances, but it made me feel very disgusted with myself. At some point I felt like I was literally watching a porno film for the amount ofI really don't know what to think about this movie: it has incredible actors that deliver flawless performances, but it made me feel very disgusted with myself. At some point I felt like I was literally watching a porno film for the amount of nudity present (both full frontal female and male and not to mention both hetero and homo sexual orgies just randomly). Don't get me wrong though, the women are gorgeous and you would probably do the same as Leonardo's character if you were in his position. There's also A LOT of drugs. SO DO NOT BRING KIDS TO THIS MOVIE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. The question you ask yourself while walking out is was all this extreme content really necessary to illustrate the simple theme of how greed and corruption destroy people? This movie was definitely engineered in order to shock and trust me it succeeded, but left me very startled at the same time. The script itself is very well written and it is probably one of Leonardo's best performances to date, but the movie content itself just gets in the way most of the time. However, Dicaprio's speeches in front of his entire staff are quite incredible. Overall, as I mentioned before, I really don't know what to make of this movie. It has both great and disturbing qualities that battle each other throughout the entire film. Expand
1 of 5 users found this helpful14
All this user's reviews
5
David_HApr 6, 2014
I'll admit there is some beautiful bodies and gratuitous skin, especially the starring actress Margot Robbie is gorgeous. However there just isn't much of a story and it seems like a really long movie that's mostly about severe substanceI'll admit there is some beautiful bodies and gratuitous skin, especially the starring actress Margot Robbie is gorgeous. However there just isn't much of a story and it seems like a really long movie that's mostly about severe substance abuse, which makes it kind of a downer. Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
5
LouZooJan 1, 2014
A few of my all time favorite films came from Scorsese. His track record is remarkable.

But this film is another story. Yes, remarkable acting. Several remarkable scenes. In spite of this I found myself board, board, board. The repetition
A few of my all time favorite films came from Scorsese. His track record is remarkable.

But this film is another story. Yes, remarkable acting. Several remarkable scenes. In spite of this I found myself board, board, board. The repetition of unfortunate behavior, making the same point over and over, the three hour stretch of waiting for the story to evolve, several absurd scenes lending nothing to the content, did I say boring? Never thought I'd hear those words coming from me about a Scorsese film.

Save your money and time on this one. There are too many other terrific films to see. Or stay home and watch Gangs of New York, Hugo, or Good Fellas. All worth watching over and over. I won't watch The Wolf of Wall Street again.
Expand
0 of 5 users found this helpful05
All this user's reviews
6
JawsLaxerDramaDec 31, 2013
The Wolf of Wall Steet is an outrageous, twisted, entertaining and devious film. Many say there is a glorification of sex, drugs and greed that is wrapped so tightly in the film that every five minutes there is a sex scene at a X rated level.The Wolf of Wall Steet is an outrageous, twisted, entertaining and devious film. Many say there is a glorification of sex, drugs and greed that is wrapped so tightly in the film that every five minutes there is a sex scene at a X rated level. I didn't mind, because that is how our super star, Leo Dicaprio plays with a delicious appetite. Every other word may be and at times, I wanted to leave because after 300 uses of ****ing---it loses emphasis. (506 f u c k uses) There is an important message here. The moral errosion, the twisted deceit and the overwhelming lack of a solid plot, this is what is out there in the world. Especially in the US. Now, as for my rating of six, I did not love the movie. I thought it had its pros and cons. For starters, cut the sex scenes down, trim down the use of f u c k (which I am not offended by, but it definitely loses emphasis) and show if Belfort was in any way full of remorse. The second half of the picture is better, gaining personal ground and...well,the whole point was to share this ridiculous story, to batter our minds with a genuine question of "why?". My feelings are somewhat mixed. Some scenes are too long when you get th point, entertaining here and there, and it never fails to show you. I am not a prude. I just think it went over the top, which is what is should have done, but there is something about WOWS that I couldn't connect to. If you're debating whether or not to see it, please do. There is a lot of mixed reaction on here, and especially in the theatre. Cheers. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
killdrphilMar 20, 2014
Very shallow movie. With a very simplistic, tiresome plot. If you can call it a plot that is. Guy does illegal things, makes a lot of money, lives in debauchery. FBI catches on and then eventually strikes a deal with him. That's basically it.Very shallow movie. With a very simplistic, tiresome plot. If you can call it a plot that is. Guy does illegal things, makes a lot of money, lives in debauchery. FBI catches on and then eventually strikes a deal with him. That's basically it. Other than Dicaprio's performance and a few funny scenes, there isn't much to recommend here. One would think Scorcese and Dicaprio would want to aim higher at this point in their careers. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
LokathorApr 26, 2014
Moderately well off guy becomes a total sleeze bag and becomes a filthy rich degenerate. Then he goes too far and ends up not being as filthy rich by the end. I wouldn't mind the story, except that degenerate sleezebag wallstreet execs aren'tModerately well off guy becomes a total sleeze bag and becomes a filthy rich degenerate. Then he goes too far and ends up not being as filthy rich by the end. I wouldn't mind the story, except that degenerate sleezebag wallstreet execs aren't actually caught so often in real life, so that's always a damn shame. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
CinePlaceboJan 30, 2014
La última película del director Martín Scorsese, The Wolf of Wall Street comienza a ganar atención gracias a la extensa campaña de promoción en todos los países, reavivar el mito de no ganar el Oscar a mejor director y la extensa lista deLa última película del director Martín Scorsese, The Wolf of Wall Street comienza a ganar atención gracias a la extensa campaña de promoción en todos los países, reavivar el mito de no ganar el Oscar a mejor director y la extensa lista de vítores por su célebre producción. Una película que ha resultado no sólo un boom publicitario, sino que la gran mayoría de la crítica se ha volcado en exorbitantes calificativos dejándola en un pedestal del cual falta por discutir un poco más. Para leer más en cineplacebos.webnode.es Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
captaindangerJan 26, 2014
Entertaining while you're watching it, but afterwards you ask yourself "Why the **** did I watch this movie?" Unrewarding, and all of the characters are dicks.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
wvmoviefanFeb 5, 2014
This film was a wild ride until it became too long and lost me completely. The turning point was the exit from the country club....how could he crawl out to a car with no one seeing.....been to many upscale clubs and they're NEVER leftThis film was a wild ride until it became too long and lost me completely. The turning point was the exit from the country club....how could he crawl out to a car with no one seeing.....been to many upscale clubs and they're NEVER left totally unattended. Guess Scorsese fell so in love with his character that it blinded him to the "real" he'd been trying to document. What the film did, however, was restore my faith in DiCaprio's acting ability. He was great in This Boy's Life, Grape, earlier works but then he just started appearing. This film demonstrates his range and showcases once more how talented he is. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
TragicShowJan 1, 2015
This entire movie is just one big orgy. The movie chases itself in circles by transitioning from making millions and then using rolled up one hundred dollar bills to snort cocaine up his nose to him regretting it the following day, and beingThis entire movie is just one big orgy. The movie chases itself in circles by transitioning from making millions and then using rolled up one hundred dollar bills to snort cocaine up his nose to him regretting it the following day, and being put into a situation that would require a sober man. For a comedy, it only made me smirk a couple of times. %10 of this movie is Leonardo Dicaprio/familly and friends upset that he does so many drugs. %15 of the movie is him doing drugs. %10 is pointless dialogue. %5 is important dialogue. And the other %70 is him having sex with any woman he can find. If you watched the entire beginning, about 10 minutes of the middle part, and then skipped to the very end, you would be able to summarize the plot as well as anybody who has seen the thing 5 times already. That's how much filler there is. If you like immature commedy at the sacrifice of a coherent plot, then you might enjoy this movie. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
psyberdelicMar 29, 2014
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 gagSo 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
TheRealMcLeanJan 27, 2014
An overall fantastic film, that is ruined by moments of needless, over the top excess, that seems to steal the viewer away from the mostly excellent plot. Despite these moments, which mostly come towards the end of the film, (where it mainlyAn overall fantastic film, that is ruined by moments of needless, over the top excess, that seems to steal the viewer away from the mostly excellent plot. Despite these moments, which mostly come towards the end of the film, (where it mainly seems to fall apart and feel like the film never really decided upon its ending, resulting in a jumble of in effective twists and hollow moments), in most aspects, bar DiCaprio. DiCaprio never lets his role down once in the entire three hours and executes each scene perfectly. This film seems like a playground for DiCaprio to prove all he can to achieve that seriously deserved Oscar. For any issue there is with this film, Leo is not to blame and it is for him alone that this film will forever remain very memorable. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
kelleykJan 5, 2014
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...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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
CdymawstroJan 15, 2014
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. TheI 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
NAQURATORApr 2, 2014
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. A big dissapoinment. I had high hopes because of the incredible score, but sadly I had the fealing of watching every movie where a gangster goes big and loses it all in the end. I don't know why exactly but it feels like a modern remake of Blow but replacing the weed with stocks. If this was the first movie in it's kind it would get an 8 at least, but same old story and same predictable end... I think I would have liked it if dicaprio got away with it and lived happily ever after. It is a true story, but then again this is the story of every stock brocker that **** up and makes a lot of money along the way... Worth a watch, but be warned this isn't the piece of art we're made to believe

just my opinion
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
zouz123Apr 16, 2014
Apart from its boring sex and drugs scenes, it has some good moments. But overall, the movie is waaay overrated and boring. We've seen it all, done it all, and more...
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
kenbramerApr 30, 2014
The Wolf of Wall Street had a lot of potential but it proved to be simply too long and too wannabe. Martin Scorsese is known for making films to this length, but this didn't work the way Gangs of New York or The Departed did. First of all,The Wolf of Wall Street had a lot of potential but it proved to be simply too long and too wannabe. Martin Scorsese is known for making films to this length, but this didn't work the way Gangs of New York or The Departed did. First of all, Leonardo DiCaprio is the main actor and narrator, and once you get used to his character's sense of humor, it becomes recycled and boring. It almost seems as though he is trying too hard to represent the wolf that was stock-market giant Jordan Belfort. The movie is an overly-exaggerated version of the actual over-exaggerated life of a scumbag whose only interest was having a lot of fun and even more money. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
Bryan_ScottJul 7, 2014
Hey you!

Have you been so let down after experiencing something there was a lot of hype for? Lower your expectations and you will find that The Wolf Of Wall street is at least entertaining. DiCaprios performance is as ever, and quite the
Hey you!

Have you been so let down after experiencing something there was a lot of hype for? Lower your expectations and you will find that The Wolf Of Wall street is at least entertaining. DiCaprios performance is as ever, and quite the same. Margot Robbies acting was sub par, I gets thats the price you pay when hiring an adult entertainer. I do say that Jonah Hills character in this was well done in comparison to his other works.

The brief narrations in this movie irked me, as they narration wasnt well done and never seemed to capture the emotion of the given scene. What else could I say about this movie that's not necessarily negative?

If you want to watch a movie about massive debauchery and not think too much, I say this movie will do the trick.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
borderlinefilmsFeb 5, 2015
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Voracious Bull

Every time I try to enjoy a Martin Scorcese movie post-1980 I ask myself what made Raging Bull so great? Did Marty burn out after his Jake LaMotta bio, the same way Coppola did after Apocalypse Now? These were risky movies, driven by passion, bordering on madness. Did Marty and Francis lose their natural passion for making films because industry priorities dismissed 70's-style hyper-realism for sensational summer blockbusters and CGI spectacles? And why is Scorcese considered one of the greatest director when he really only made one truly superb movie?

When I first saw Raging Bull in 1980 I immediately knew I was watching something that transcended the typical cinematic experience. Genius was shimmering out of every perforated frame flickering on the screen. Paul, Marty, Bobby, Mike and Thelma created something that was completely absorbing. The style and substance was perfectly fueled by a flawless emotional narrative. Every element was orchestrated just right. The audience was spellbound. We were watching greatness. A rare and unique organic creation. I'm still waiting for Robert Redford to correct a travesty of justice and hand his Ocscar over to it's rightful owner. And I'm still waiting for Scorcese to match his own brilliance. But that's like expecting Tarantino to top Pulp Fiction. There's a better chance Orson Welles rises up from the dead to one up Citizen Kane.

After Raging Bull, Scorcese has made a string of pictures ranging from not bad to pretty good. All well-made, thoughtful and meticulously crafted films, but nothing special; certainly nothing profound. Contrary to popular opinion, Goodfellas is not a great movie. I was not swept away by the saga. I was annoyed rather by the fragmented non-stop soundtrack and incessant up-tempo style. Marty wasn't risking anything anymore. He seemed to be afraid of boring the audience. Perhaps he was trying to revive the 1940's never-let-up screwball-bouncing farcical Preston Sturges and co. comedies. But this is a mafia film. This should have been right up Marty's alley. It's been almost a quarter of a century since De Niro got his face busted in a boxing ring. Since the raw, robust and naive will-power of LaMotta's youth plunged into the pathetic, brutal, bone-headed stupidity of his later years. Similarly, Scorsese hasn't registered a knock-out punch since. Would his ensuing movies be considered great if someone else directed them? Would I have liked them all better if Raging Bull had never been made?

The Wolf of Wall Street is another exhausting affair. It tries too hard to excite and entertain us. It's afraid of slowing down, allowing us to ponder or examine the complexities of excessive greed, shameless wealth and unbridled capitalism. It desperately wants to arouse us. Like a neglected clown at a child's birthday trying to be loved and taken seriously while draining the life out of the party. Give Leo and Jonah an "A" for effort. They couldn't have tried harder if they broke out into song and dance every ten minutes. And they convincingly appeared to enjoy themselves freely indulging in coke, ludes and naked women every five minutes. It was nice of Leo to step back while Margot Robbie took her routine and obligatory, supporting-actress hissy fit. And you know a filmmaker has a lot of faith and confidence in his work when a superfluous narration track is added, to plug those terrifying noiseless gaps. Whatever happened to poignant, suspenseful, sure-footed, gripping, emotionally-arresting dramas that take you on a nervy, wild ride to a thoroughly gratifying climax? A truly great director from Kurosowa to, well, Scorcese-(circa 1979) would have plotted the rise and fall of a maniacal protagonist along deeper and more affecting lines even at the risk boring its audience for one minute.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
DCEdmondsNov 13, 2014
"The Wolf of Wall Street" 10 Scale Rating: 6.5 (Decent) ...

The Good: DiCaprio was absolutely amazing and deserving of his Oscar nomination. Jonah Hill has really come a long way as an actor and was great as well. The cast all around
"The Wolf of Wall Street" 10 Scale Rating: 6.5 (Decent) ...

The Good: DiCaprio was absolutely amazing and deserving of his Oscar nomination. Jonah Hill has really come a long way as an actor and was great as well. The cast all around deserved accolades. The story itself was interesting and Scorsese grabs your interest five minutes in.

The Bad: It is way too long and contains way too much filler. The film is about excess and I get that, but there were far too many scenes depicting it. It felt like of the three hours the movie takes to complete, two of them were lengthy sex, alcohol and drugs binges. That fact severely limited how good the film could be.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
BassmanUWDec 30, 2014
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The biggest issue with this movie, which knocked it down from a movie that could have been an 8 or 9 to a 4, was that it was far too long. I really enjoyed the first hour or so of the movie, from Belfort's introduction to the brokerage industry through the creation of Stratton Oakmont and their decision to move away from selling penny stocks solely to lower and middle class folks and instead trying to create relationships (and sell those stocks) to wealthier clients. I enjoyed the initial showing of the opulence, fraud, and craziness that was the Stratton Oakmont at least of Belfort's characterization. But then that portion of the film went on... and on... and on... and it added nothing to the understanding of the characters. I got it at 90 minutes into the film: these were bad men who were willing to do awful things to make themselves as wealthy as possible. The continued at great length portrayals of their awfulness did not make me think they were more awful, but instead took me out of the film and made me so bored that, by the time the action actually picked up again (when Belfort realized he was under investigation, his meeting with the FBI agents, and his move to get his money out of the US), I just couldn't get back into it. The movie could have easily cut a half hour off the run time and I would have felt it would have ended with a better result. For example, I felt the entire IPO Day scene was unnecessary. We already knew Donnie was a jerk, the fish eating/firing scene added nothing. We already knew that, at least according to Belfort, Stratton Oakmont viewed him as a something akin to a cult leader. We didn't need him herding the sheep after Madden tried to speak. That scene also seemed the most hollow and untrue to me in the film.

I also think the film could have been better had they done some more research BEYOND Belfort's memoir, and didn't just essentially present Belfort's memoir as fact. I would have found it much more interesting to have seen Belfort's rendition juxtaposed with what others (who said the environment was much more tame) said.

Other point: too much was focused on the Naomi relationship. It was clear from moment one that she liked Belfort solely for his money and the lifestyle he could provide. They didn't need to treat it like it was some crazy reveal, like we didn't get that he was delusional about their relationship.

I didn't get pulled back into the movie until the very last scene, where Belfort was doing the sales motivational speech, and you got pulled back into what made his group able to pull off the sort of fraud they did: they were able to convince buyers that they needed something that they did not actually need.

Short version: could have been a great movie, had a great start, but was at least a half hour too long and stuck too close to Belfort's telling as opposed to trying to provide some more objective truth.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews